Witchcraft
Matthew Huntbach
>>No, I consider all religions as an attempt to relate to God. Obviously, as a
>>Christian I believe Christianity comes closest to that relationship. ...
>Where is your >proof< that the god of the Jews is indubitably the same God as
>that of
>Christians? If this is true, then what is wrong with paganism if we really do
>worship the same source? Jews do not worship god the same way christians do
>and yet you accept them as being "untainted". ...
The >proof< is that Jesus himself was Jewish, and used the term "God" to mean
God as the Jews understand God; his usage of that term obviously carries on to
Christianity.
I am suggesting there in an ordering on religions, you are opposing it.
What you are trying to say is that if I believe X>Y, then I why can't I
believe X=Y.
Matthew Huntbach
Lazuras
(Richard Schennberg) writes:
>Almost all Jews and Christians, as well as several other religions,
>acknowledge Moses as one of the greatest prophets of almight God.
>He is among those who gave the sternest warnings against pagan gods:
>Deuteronomy 29 (NAB)
Almost all? Then not all Jews and Christians agree? Besides, where does it
show that the god that Moses spoke to (ie. the Jewish god) is the same that
Christians worship?
>17. Let there be, then, no man or woman, no clan or tribe among you, who
>would now turn away their hearts from the Lord, our God, to go out and
>serve these pagan gods! Let there be no root that would bear such poison
>and wormwood among you!
>18. If any such person, upon hearing the words of this curse, should
>beguile himself into thinking that he can safely persist in his
>stubbornness of heart, as though to sweep away both the watered soil and
>the parched ground,
>19. the Lord will never consent to pardon him. Instead, the Lord's wrath
>and jealousy will flare up against that man, and every curse mentioned in
>this book will alight on him...
>23. they and all nations will ask, "Why has the Lord dealt thus with this
>land? Why this fierce outburst of wrath?"
>24. And the answer will be, "Because they forsook the covenant which the
>Lord, the God of their fathers, had made with them when he brought them
>out of the land of Egypt,
>25. and they went and served other gods and adored them, gods whom they
>did not know and whom he had not let fall to their lot:
>26. that is why the Lord was angry with this land and brought on it all
>the imprecations listed in this book;..."
>I see no basis for trying to merge pagan with any religion that
>acknowledges Moses as a prophet, unless you are deliberately trying
>to bring a curse on yourself.... IMO not a good idea!
Richard, this seems to only apply to people who have made a covenant with your
god (verse 24), therefore it would not apply to me as I have never made a pact
with your deity -- this chapter only applies to oathbreakers. Also, this does
not say that the Goddess is not the Holy Spirit, it just mentions "pagan gods"
of which there are many.
Richard, what is the NAB Bible? The King James Version has these verses from
Deuteronomy 29:
16: (For ye know how we have dwealt in the land of Egypt; and how we came
through the nations which ye passed by;
17: And ye have seen their adbominations, and their idols, wood and stone,
silver and gold, which were among them;)
18: Lest there should be amoung you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose
heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of
these nations; lest there should be amoung you a root that beareth gall and
wormwood;
Gee, it seems to me that they are referring to Egyptian and Middle East
religions here, not Indo-European -- we don't worship idols, we have symbols of
our god just as you do -- we worship the deity, NOT the symbol. So, as long as
you don't follow one of the religions of the nations that the followers of
Moses passed through, you should be fine.
24: Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this
land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?
25: Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God
of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the
land of Egypt:
26: For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they
knew not, and whom he had not given unto them:
Again, this only applies to oathbreakers -- My ancestors and myself have never
made a pact with your god, therefore this does not apply to us. especially
since we KNOW who are gods are, they've been known to us for tens of thousands
of years.
So, as far as I can see Richard, this still does not show that our Goddess is
not your Holy Spirit, and even if they are not, this still only applies if I
made a covenant with your lord and then broke it.
------------
[The NAB is the New American Bible, a standard Catholic translation.
The verse numbering seems to be offset by one from the KJV and NRSV.
--clh]
Lazuras
(Richard Schennberg) writes:
>IMO going into a "Christian" Church and referring to the Goddess as the
>Holy Spirit is dishonnest. Referring to the Wisdom of God or other
>traditionally female aspects of the unseen God in the female gender is
>one thing. Trying to stretch this into equating Goddess worship, which
>permits idolatry, libertine sex, sex Magick, and divination by means
>of untested spirits (no concept of good or evil), with the God of Israel,
>who through His prophets forbade all those things, is a spiritual
>fantasy. It is utterly impossible to try to practice Goddess worship
>and try to please the God of Israel who detests all forms of idolotry.
Richard, how do you know that these spirits are untested as you call them.
Anyway, only a very few pagan religions use idolatry -- the majority have
symbols of their deities just as the Christians do -- they worship the being,
not the symbol (do you worship crosses or statues of Jesus?). As to the
"libertine sex", that is patent fallacy -- paganism is very open-minded about
sex but does not promote wantoness. As to the sex magick, yes, some rituals do
work better when using sex as symbolism -- what is the problem with that?
There is nothing wrong with sex, it is a very potent way of showing and
receiving love from the divine. The Christian church has some bizarre rituals
of their own -- communion where the bread turns into the flesh of Jesus and the
wine becomes his blood, then you consume it? Blech!
And again, we do not practice idolatry, follow a stricter code than these
commandments set down in the bible, and may in fact worship the same deity,
just in different forms.
Scott A Mayo
>I wrote:
>: Sorry, I cannot let that pass unchallanged. Demonstrate that the Goddess
>: of the Wiccans (or anyone else's) is the same as the Holy Spirit talked
>: about by Christians, or be quiet.
> I think the point about pagan religions is that they all don't believe
>the same thing. If she believes that the Goddess she worships is the Holy
>spirit and that the goddess is her one true God, let her.
Um. _Let_ her? I certainly can't stop her, so I suppose I will let her
have this belief. Whether it makes any sense or not. It is no calling
of mine to _make_ anyone believe anything.
But in order to make that claim stand, someone will have to set
down the Christian description of God and, for example, the Wiccan
description of the goddess, and show how they are quite close
or identical. Hint: I have looked at this question and I don't
think it can be done. Theyhave rather different "personalities."
> After all no one
>knows what God really looks like.
Maybe you missed my point. I am not objecting to the description
of the Holy Spirit as female. Gender doesn't come into that at
all. I am objecting to calling two things the same that seem to me
to differ quite strongly, and the reasons have nothing to do with
gender.
Christians have a rough idea what God "looks like".
He looks like holiness, purity, justice, mercy and
grace. He looks personal, sentient, active, aware
and alive. He incarnated as a human so, among other
things, we would know Him better. On the basis
of that "appearance", I say He is different than
the goddess of the wiccans and I'll cheerfully raise
an argument on the point at need. However, it seems to
me that the "burden of proof" rests on the person who first
claimed that God and the goddess were the same.
Scott A Mayo
> Holy Spirit were the same being):
>>Sorry, I cannot let that pass unchallanged. Demonstrate that the Goddess
>>of the Wiccans (or anyone else's) is the same as the Holy Spirit talked about
>>by Christians, or be quiet. You just made a claim that amounts to purest
>>blasphemy in the eyes of most all of Christiandom, and if you can't back
>>it up you had better back out. BTW, the majority of neo-pagans I've spoken
>>with would not agree with you on this, but I don't much care if they do or
>>they don't - I want your reasons for equating God with Goddess and for
>>your own sake they'd best be really, really good.
fore...@elvis.srl.ford.com (Brian Forester) writes:
>I see absolutely no reason why the burden of proof must be placed on the
>Wiccans (or anyone else).
I don't know if this is a formal debate, but in such debates the person
making the claim automatically has the burden of proof. The original
poster should be willing to say why she believes this. Since she is
attempting to equate (grave apologies if I have the gender wrong) two
usually distinct beings, I don't think I'm out of line in asking for
a basis for the claim! She made a *very* *sweeping* theological claim.
>Perhaps the Wiccans of view of God is imperfect
>but I believe that Christians view of God is also imperfect.
No argument: imperfect understanding of God is a given among
humans.
> Do any
>Christians reading this claim to have a perfect understanding God? Heck,
>for sake of this argument I am even willing to agree that Christianity has
>the best understanding of the divine. I still ask you to show that perfection
>does not lie somewhere between the two.
I don't need to, to refute the claim at hand. All I need is to show
significant difference between the usual Christian descriptions
of the Holy Spirit and the usual descriptions of the goddess, in
as much as they can be produced. So why doesn't someone here
describe the goddess in the most concrete terms available, and
we'll see how it compares with the Christian understanding of
things? Neither description has to be perfect - they merely
have to be widely accepted by each group, and then compared.
>I found your post to be offensive and pushing the limits of what the
>moderator should allow. There is no need for your vaguely threatening
>statements "... you had better back out" and "... and for your own
>sake they'd best be really, really good". ...
And the moderator added:
>[I certainly did not think he was threatening to do violence to you.
>Rather, I assumed he was warning you that if you make an incorrect
>decision, you may be imperiling your eternal soul. Whatever you may
>think of such arguments, I don't think they violate the guidelines of
>the group.
I don't offer violence to anyone. But I wasn't going as far as
her eternal salvation either; I was thinking more of her
intellectual reputation. She made what I seriously believe
to be a wild claim. I think she'll look foolish if she declines
to back up her statement and more foolish yet if she tries
a weak argument from the Univeralist position. I realise this
is the internet, and no one is ashamed to make a fool of themselves
in front of an audience of thousands, but nonetheless, I don't
think a response of "back it up or be quiet" is the least bit
unreasonable when you discuss things that people base their whole
lives on.
Am I alone in thinking that she made a _very serious claim_ that
wants either serious discussion or else a total dismissal?
Scott A Mayo
>Simple. It is a fairly commonly held belief among Wiccans that:
>All Gods are one God.
>All Goddesses are one Goddess.
>There is but one Initiator.
OK. In the Christian religion we have the claim that
There is only one God.
Worship of other gods is evil.
There is only one Initiator.
All three statements are held to be pronouncements by God.
All three are essentially "foundational" truths; if you
delete any you pretty much undermine the Christian understanding
of God (and Jesus) completely.
It isn't clear to me what the goddess says about herself,
but it is fairly clear that she makes little restriction on who
or what is worshipped. If they are in fact the same
being, it is clearly confused about the celestial
headcount and its own role in it. I think that is
a significant vote against them being the same
being.
----
Scott Mayo -- Two men say they're Jesus - _one_ of them must be
wrong! -Dire Straights
Scott A Mayo
>> ... I want your reasons for equating God with Goddess and for
>>your own sake they'd best be really, really good.
>Wow!
>I've been following this thread thus far with mostly quiet interest
>... until now. Your statement sounds very much like a threat to me,
>and it sounds intolerant, uncharitable, and to me it appears to
>reflect an attitude that Jesus has asked His followers not to adopt.
Good gracious! A person demands that someone justify their position
and they get called intolerant! Is critical thinking completely
dead? Are we no longer _allowed_ to insist that a person making
public claims that fly in the face of a sacred teaching explain
what they mean and demand it be done well? Good Lord, what have
we come to?!?
On rare occasion, I posted into alt.pagan.
I would >expect< that when I made an unsupportable statement
about neo-paganism that someone would come after me with
the intellectual equivalent of a stick and straighen me out.
(On occasion, it happened). >>THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT<<.
I am asking this person to but forth their best case - to
give the argument the best shot they can - and if they fail
to defend the point, to not advance it anymore.
>Do you really mean in your heart to make threats?
"Back it up or be quiet" is not a threat, it is the debating
man's equivalent of throwing down the gauntlet. If this
poster fails to defend her (his?) point and continues to
advance it anyway, I clearly have no recourse other than
a kill file. I'd rather have the discussion, myself.
> I trust that you
>didn't intend to make such a statement, and I am praying that God shows
>me that the way your statement sounds to me isn't what you really
>meant.
You needn't go to God for this one. I can tell you myself. I meant
that the point raised flies in the face of all Christian teaching
and that I wanted to hear the reasons for it, because if he or
she is right I will be changing religions - since I intend to
worship what is True and pitch out what is false. Given that
the topic is somewhat serious, I (again) say "explain it; if
you will not, stop making claims that undermine the Christian
position in an empty fashion."
Scott A Mayo
>If you can't pin a definite set of characteristics on them, that what use is it
>calling them members of the same group? There should, at least, be some set of
>characteristics that they aim to have. Christianity has such a set, and those
>who claim to be Christians can be measured against it.
Wiccans >aren't< a group in that way. A number of witches are solitary,
meaning they are members of a religion with a population of one. This
is seen as a strength, not a weakness, by those involved. Think of it
as religion ala carte. There is no dogma. There is no absolute truth.
There is opinion, elevated to godhood.
Antti A Lahelma
>OK. In the Christian religion we have the claim that
>There is only one God.
>Worship of other gods is evil.
>There is only one Initiator.
This doesn't make sense. How can your worship "other gods" if there *is*
only one God?
It seems to me that by making bans on worshipping "other" deities, Christians
recognize the existense of other gods. What sort of a monotheism is that?
LVX,
--
Antti Lahelma GNOTHI SEAUTON "Tragedy is the farce that involves our
alah...@cc.helsinki.fi TUNNE ITSESI sympathies: farce is the tragedy that
University of Helsinki KNOW THYSELF happens to outsiders." --Aldous Huxley
Antti A Lahelma
>The >proof< is that Jesus himself was Jewish, and used the term "God" to mean
>God as the Jews understand God;
Nope, he didn't. Jesus used the word "abba" of God, which the Jews never did.
It means "father", in a very intimate sense (almost like "daddy" :). For the
Jews, Yahweh was an avenging, wrathful lord, and Jesus's idea of God was
clearly heretic and blasphemous. Anyone who has read the Bible with their
eyes open knows that the concept of God in the OT and that presented in the
NT are two entirely different things, but I'm of course aware that most
Christians cannot admit this because it contradicts their dogmas.
LVX,
--
Antti Lahelma GNOTHI SEAUTON "Tragedy is the farce that involves our
alah...@cc.helsinki.fi TUNNE ITSESI sympathies: farce is the tragedy that
University of Helsinki KNOW THYSELF happens to outsiders." --Aldous Huxley
-----------
[I should really let our Jewish contributors respond to this, but from
everything I know of Judaism this is a misunderstanding. There are
certainly differences between Christianity and Judaism, but this idea
that Jews worship an OT God who is just wrathful doesn't match
anything I know about Jews -- certainly not Jews today, and as far as
I can tell not Jews of the 1st Cent. --clh]
Lazuras
Israel. So this means that if I worship the Goddess to the best of my ability
and follow the precept -- do as thou wilt an it harm none, I will go to her
version of heaven (which is quite different from the Christian version, a point
that should have been brought up earlier) and if a christian worships their god
and follows his precepts, then they will go to their god's version of heaven.
No problem there. I have no reason to doubt that the god of Israel exists, as
does the Goddess -- our beliefs do not conflict with that. Does you bible say
that there are no other gods, or just not to worship them?
VL Oliver
: > I agree that Wicca is not Christianity, but I disagree with the reasons
: > you give. My experience with Wiccans is that you can't pin a definite
: > set of characteristics on them.
: If you can't pin a definite set of characteristics on them, that what use is it
: calling them members of the same group? There should, at least, be some set of
: characteristics that they aim to have. Christianity has such a set, and those
: who claim to be Christians can be measured against it.
First, of all I believ they call them selves practisoners of Wicca. And
why if Christianity has a set does that make everyone else have a set. Just
because one group follows a patern of characteristics(and you have to admit
most christian denominations follow different patterns in forms of worship
if nothing else) does not mean that other religons are forced to do the
same. I think thats suppose to be one of the quirks of the Wicca religon,
that it is not set in stone
Tor. Life like stew. You nevr know what you are getting into.
Blessed is the Lord.
Daniel B. Holzman
Scott A Mayo <sm...@world.std.com> wrote:
>OK. In the Christian religion we have the claim that
>There is only one God.
>Worship of other gods is evil.
>There is only one Initiator.
>All three are essentially "foundational" truths; if you
>delete any you pretty much undermine the Christian understanding
>of God (and Jesus) completely.
And this is why Wicca and Christianity are two different religions. We
have not claimed that we have your understanding of your Diety. We have
our understanding of your Diety.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiples. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
klh...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> Wiccans >aren't< a group in that way. A number of witches are solitary,
> meaning they are members of a religion with a population of one. This
> is seen as a strength, not a weakness, by those involved. Think of it
> as religion ala carte. There is no dogma. There is no absolute truth.
> There is opinion, elevated to godhood.
No absolute truth? You mean we each make our own? I must say, I find this
implausible. If a plane flies overhead, everyone looks up. If innocents are
slaughtered in Bosnia, everyone reads about it in the paper. If God exists,
then he exists. If he doesn't, he doesn't. I can't create him.
I'd take issue with your statement that "there is no dogma." If each of you is
creating his or her own universe, you must reject the proposition that the
universe exists in a particular way, and that no amount of "elevated opinion"
can change that. This is our difference. You don't believe things exist,
except in your own mind. I believe things exist outside of myself, and that
therefore, they exist for everyone.
Antti A Lahelma
> Nope, he didn't. Jesus used the word "abba" of God, which the Jews never did.
> It means "father", in a very intimate sense (almost like "daddy" :). For the
> Jews, Yahweh was an avenging, wrathful lord, and Jesus's idea of God was
> clearly heretic and blasphemous.
To which Charles Hedrick replied:
>[I should really let our Jewish contributors respond to this, but from
>everything I know of Judaism this is a misunderstanding. There are
>certainly differences between Christianity and Judaism, but this idea
>that Jews worship an OT God who is just wrathful doesn't match
>anything I know about Jews -- certainly not Jews today, and as far as
>I can tell not Jews of the 1st Cent. --clh]
Well, of course not "just wrathful", that would a silly generalization.
But surely you realize that the OT God shows much less mercy than the NT
God, and doesn't hesitate to punish severely his chosen people if they sin.
He sends forth foreign armies and plagues to kill Jews, and turns fields
into deserts; he is the Lord of Hosts, who shakes the heavens and the earth.
He is a lot of other things as well, but this aspect is certainly among the
most important features of the OT God. He is, essentially, a celestial _King_
who rules his people with a strong hand, sometimes very severely but always
just. I don't know that much about modern Judaism, but at least in the 1st
century AD this was the God Jews (except for a certain heretic sect) believed
in.
By contrast, in the NT one is introduced to a God who is forgiving and
merciful, one who loves even the worst sinner. He is a _Father_, whose
Son is a _shepherd_ guiding his flock. He doesn't let his "wrath flow
and fill the earth" if someone sins a bit, but forgives sinners and accepts
the prodigal sons back with open arms, so to speak. A radical change if
there ever was one. Certainly there are other changes as well; God becomes
more universal instead of being mostly a tribal god, he becomes more
transcendent and doesn't guide history as actively, more of a neo-platonic
philosophical entity than the machoish Lord and Judge of deutero-Isaiah,
and so forth.
Again, I'm a generalizing a bit (because I don't feel like writing a book
on the subject just now), but to deny the changes is absurd and can only
be motivated by dogmatism. Certainly there's an amount of continuity between
the OT and the NT in how they portray "god", but the two testaments never-
theless describe two quite different beings.
Scott A Mayo
> This doesn't make sense. How can your worship "other gods" if there *is*
> only one God?
> It seems to me that by making bans on worshipping "other" deities, Christians
> recognize the existense of other gods. What sort of a monotheism is that?
This is an attempt at baiting, right? Because I am reasonably certain
that you at least know the biblical position on this.
The Bible talks of gods loosely. It describes man as a sort of god
in at least one verse (sorry, no concordance to hand, as usual).
It talks of the worship of other gods, even while pointing out
that such worship is folly and the object of worship nonexistant.
In the modern era, Christians commonly talk about people treating
inanimate things, like money, as gods. They are not proposing that
it is actually a sentient being. The OT (and I think NT) offers
wording like this as well.
The Jews grew up a monotheists in a polythestic world. They tended
to use the terminology of these groups when pointing out their
errors. Paul, in the NT, himself talked to the Greeks about
their gods, centering his attention on the unknown god, as the
greeks called it, in a passage that repays study.
What Christians recognise - and I think you know this - is that
people are perfectly capable of >treating< things as gods:
which is idolatry when applied to anything but God himself.
Bill Quinnan
> This doesn't make sense. How can your worship "other gods" if there *is*
> only one God?
> It seems to me that by making bans on worshipping "other" deities, Christians
> recognize the existense of other gods. What sort of a monotheism is that?
There is only one God, in the sense that there is one being worthy
of our worship, one initiator of all that exists. This is the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is one in being as the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
There are, however, billions of gods, in the sense that there are
billions of creations that people worship instead of God. These
beings cannot be called gods in and of themselves in the same way
that God is God no matter what He is called, for these other beings
are only gods so far as they are treated like gods, and given the
love that is only appropriate for God. Some of these gods are
things that are initially good creations of God, but misused
by those who worship them. These include sex, rain, sunlight,
friendship, and so forth. Other gods are perversions of the
universe inspired by the devil to distract us from God, such
as pride, envy, greed, and others.
Christians are monotheistic in that we believe in one God. The
Bible itself acknowledges the existance of other gods.
Peace,
Bill Quinnan
--
_ "Don't let the thunder scare you--
_|_|_ If you hear it, you know the lightning missed."
_(_)_ --Bill Quinnan
/ |^| \ wqui...@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Richard Schennberg
Antti A Lahelma <alah...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
[...]
> This doesn't make sense. How can your worship "other gods" if there *is*
> only one God?
>
> It seems to me that by making bans on worshipping "other" deities, Christians
> recognize the existense of other gods. What sort of a monotheism is that?
Christians usually mean an idol, not a real god, when refering to
the prohibition against worshipping other deities. This includes:
- people
- statues
- vain imaginations
- evil spirits
Attributing full deity to any of these would of itself be idolatry.
Richard
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to tell the truth. This may not coincide with university policy!
Richard Paul Schennberg FAX ==> 606-273-6196
Email ==> sche...@ms.uky.edu Flames ==> /dev/null
Richard Schennberg
IMO it says both. I used the online Bible (KJV) to search for "no gods:"
2 Kings 19:18 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 destroyed them.
Isaiah 37:19 and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods,
but the work of men's hands, wood and stone; and they have destroyed them.
Jeremiah 2:11 Hath a nation changed its gods? and they are no gods;--but
my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit
16:20 Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no-gods?
Acts 19:26 and ye see and hear that this Paul has persuaded and turned
away a great crowd, not only of Ephesus, but almost of all Asia, saying
that they are no gods which are made with hands.
There are also many prohibitions against idolotry:
Exodus 23:13 And ye shall be on your guard as to everything that I have
said unto you; and shall make no mention of the name of other gods--it
shall not be heard in thy mouth.
Deuteronomy 5:7 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
6:14 Ye shall not go after other godes, of the gods of the
peoples that are round about you
7:4 for he will turn away thy son from following me, and
they will serve other gods, and the andger of Jehovah will be kindled
against you, and he will destroy thee quickly.
8:19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget Jehovah
thy God, and go after other gods, and serve them, and bow down to them,
I testify against you this day that ye shall utterly perish.
11:16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not
deceived, and ye turn aside and serve other gods, and bow donw to them,
11:28 and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of
Jehovah your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you
this day, to go after other gods which ye have not known.
...etc....
I have to agree with you that this might only apply to Jews and Christians.
On the other hand, similar to the doctrine of "universal grace" where our
risen Lord and Savior can impart salvation on whosoever He chooses, there
may be both present and everlasting consequences to idol worship. IMO
idols can be false spiritual leaders, inanimate statues, vain imaginations,
and perhaps angels, principalities and powers. Whereas there could be
grave consequences to fellowshipping with evil spirits, seeking good
angels or spirits such is often done in "white witchcraft" may be less
serious but nonetheless keep you from knowing our Lord. IMO the spirit
of the Law (God's guidance for Israel applied out of Love for Him and
mankind, without the original penalties) is still the best standard of
holiness to date, and any human attempt to try to improve on the Law
without His guidance is bound to fail. BTW, I mean this of both kinds
of attempts to pervert the Law, whether to make it more liberal or more
conservative. Adding extra spiritual "laws" will not lead to greater
holiness, but rather to the sin of pride.
arnold v. lesikar
>>OK. In the Christian religion we have the claim that
>>There is only one God.
>>Worship of other gods is evil.
>
> only one God?
>
> It seems to me that by making bans on worshipping "other" deities, Christians
> recognize the existense of other gods. What sort of a monotheism is that?
>
the only Bible literalists in the world <sigh>.
The point to the prohibition against the worship of other gods in
Dueteronomy 5:7-8 and in Exodus 20:3-4 would seem that the people that the
Israelites encountered worshipped other gods than Yahweh, such as
Baal. These gods were considered by the neighboring peoples to exist.
These gods were represented by idols. These gods were objects of
worship. And that would seem to be the point.
The Decalogue is concerned with behavior rather than belief - not
murdering, not committing adultery, not stealing, not taking the name
of God in vain, observing the Sabbath, and so forth. So similarly the
command against the worship of foreign gods is concerned with the
action, making an idol, worshipping at a shrine, honoring the god in
some way instead of Yaweh. The fact that the foreign gods is almost
irrelevant. The point is the worship, not the existence or
non-existence of the gods. In fact the fact that the god of the idol
does NOT exist makes the offense worse, for the idol is a lie (Isaiah
44:20).
This is a pretty paltry objection to raise against the Christian faith
and the Bible, I must say!
most sincerely,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Antti A Lahelma
>alah...@cc.helsinki.fi (Antti A Lahelma) writes:
>> This doesn't make sense. How can your worship "other gods" if there *is*
>> only one God?
>This is an attempt at baiting, right?
Nope, it's a relatively sincere question. :)
>The Bible talks of gods loosely. It describes man as a sort of god
>in at least one verse (sorry, no concordance to hand, as usual).
Interesting. This happens to be a rather common idea among neo-pagans,
and also one of the main accusations that Christians seem to have against
pagans. Could you try to find the verse so I can check it?
>It talks of the worship of other gods, even while pointing out
>that such worship is folly and the object of worship nonexistant.
I believe the early scripture is rather monolatric, i.e it warns against
worship of other gods but doesn't deny their existense.
>What Christians recognise - and I think you know this - is that
>people are perfectly capable of >treating< things as gods:
>which is idolatry when applied to anything but God himself.
Well, let's forget about money and idols, and focus on immaterial "things"
-- "other gods", that is.
Christians recognize that they don't know the nature of "god" except for
some rather vague characteristics described in the Bible. How do Christians
know they worship exactly /that/ idea of "god" they are supposed to? They
don't. I bet every Christian has a slightly individual idea of what "god" is
like; some will place more emphasis on the loving aspects of "god", some
will see him more as a judge. In addition to that, the culture the Christian
lives in will have enormous effect on his idea of "god".
So we get a very wide spectrum of "gods" inside Christianity. You can say
that these "gods" comprise a whole that is the Christian god; fine, but why
stop there? If you have people worshipping a god that has basically the same
qualities as described in the Bible, just calling it by some other name, may
be worship it slightly differently (and there's a wide spectrum of worship
inside Christianity, too, as I'm sure you know) what reason do have for
excluding them from the whole? And if they don't call themselves "christians",
so what? They could still be more "christian" than you.
"Gods" are ideas that may or may not reflect a deeper reality; what names
they carry is totally irrelevant. It's the characteristics that matter, and
they always overlap to some extent. Quite often, the actual differences
between the ideas of "god" between two religions are smaller than what can
be found inside one religion.
My point is that you can't draw a clear line between the "Christian God" and
"other gods". Therefore, you can't at the same time say that "there is only
one god" *and* prohibit worship of "other gods", unless you clearly define
what the "other gods" are like. If you don't do that, and I don't think the
the Bible does it, you have two choices: either say that "all gods are one
God", which would make worshipping "other gods" impossible, or say that
"other gods exist, but you must not worship them".
Does any of this make sense to you? :)
LVX,
--
Antti Lahelma GNOTHI SEAUTON "Tragedy is the farce that involves our
alah...@cc.helsinki.fi TUNNE ITSESI sympathies: farce is the tragedy that
University of Helsinki KNOW THYSELF happens to outsiders." --Aldous Huxley
[I suspect the reference you are looking for is John 10:34 ff. --clh]
Steve...@f20.n7106.z5.fidonet.org
>DF: One thing to keep in mind: Historically, Christianity comdemmed
>DF: Non-Christian religions with the the labels "WitchCraft" and
>DF: "Satanic". "WitchCraft", to Christians, is an invention of their
>DF: own fears. Not to mention the "Witch-Purges" keep people in
>DF: line!
There is more truth in your first statement than in your second one.
Paleo-pagans feared witchcraft a great deal more than Christians did - and
very often still do.
Just this week near here the police had to give protection to a woman where an
angry mob was threatening to burn her house down, accusing her of witchcraft
and harbouring zombies. There was a group of isangomas there trying to smell
out the zombies.
Michael SB Shoshani
: In <May.17.01.19...@geneva.rutgers.edu> m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: >The >proof< is that Jesus himself was Jewish, and used the term "God" to mean
: >God as the Jews understand God;
: Nope, he didn't. Jesus used the word "abba" of God, which the Jews never did.
: It means "father", in a very intimate sense (almost like "daddy" :). For the
: Jews, Yahweh was an avenging, wrathful lord, and Jesus's idea of God was
: clearly heretic and blasphemous. Anyone who has read the Bible with their
: eyes open knows that the concept of God in the OT and that presented in the
: NT are two entirely different things, but I'm of course aware that most
: Christians cannot admit this because it contradicts their dogmas.
: [I should really let our Jewish contributors respond to this, but from
: everything I know of Judaism this is a misunderstanding. There are
: certainly differences between Christianity and Judaism, but this idea
: that Jews worship an OT God who is just wrathful doesn't match
: anything I know about Jews -- certainly not Jews today, and as far as
: I can tell not Jews of the 1st Cent. --clh]
Three cheers for the Moderator! As an Orthodox Jew, I shall attempt a
response....
The "Wrathful God" concept is a bit misleading, because it looks like God is
forever threatening, exterminating, venting anger, etc. in many
places--if only a cursory glance is given.
In fact, every time you see such a situation, invariably it is the result of
flagrant disobedience of God or His Commandments; usually this is on a
*national* level. The few times it occurs on an *individual* level
(Korach and Aachan come to mind) it is because the individuals were popular
enough to lead the entire Jewish Nation astray.
Most notably, it is important to remember that the threats to "wreak havoc"
are *conditional*. One of the Jewish laws of Prophecy is that while a
*positive* prophecy will come true (blessings, etc.), a *negative* prophecy
(death, destruction, captivity) is conditional--and will not be carried
out if the people repent. This is why Jonah had such a difficult time...
He was told to go to Ninevah to warn the people that if they did not repent,
they would be destroyed. God was *giving them a second chance*. Jonah felt
that they "had it coming", and tried his best to avoid the mission. God
had other ideas, though...:-)....and when the people *did* repent and the
evil decree *was* averted, Jonah had a very hard time dealing with it.
I might add that these situations are no less "wrathful" than the promises
of World Destruction in The Revelation Of St. John.
The "Loving God" theme is actually a *very big part* of the OT, mostly in the
Five Books of Moses. We are commanded to love God, God expresses His
love for us, and commands us to love our fellows as we love ourselves. (This
is indirectly understood to be a command to love onesself, as well, since
one must love onesself in order to love his neighbor as himself.)
We Jews *do* address God as "Abba", and always have. Not in Formal Prayer
(where He is addressed in the Third Person, as befits a King), but in
personal private prayer. We believe that God desires an intimate
relationship with each and every one of us, as a Father to His children.
("Abba", by the way, is Aramaic not Hebrew. The Hebrew for Father is "AV";
the intimate form is "OVI", "MY father".)
I hope this clarifies a few points on how we relate to the Deity. Yes, there
are differences in Jewish and Christian beliefs, but not when it comes to God
and man and their relationship.
In Peace,
Michael Shoshani
--
| Reader, suppose you were an idiot; and | Michael SB Shoshani |
| suppose you were a member of Congress; | Chicago IL, USA |
| but I repeat myself. | shos...@gagme.wwa.com |
| --Mark Twain |
Thomas Price
In article <May.9.00.22....@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>It was common in ancient times to suppose most things originated from Egypt,
>it being known then that Egypt was the oldest extent civilization. On the
>whole, the ancient were wrong though, as there is little evidence for
>Egyptian culture feeding into western civilization. In fact, western paganism
>links better with Hinduism, and that is what the linguistic evidence shows us,
>Latin and Greek being in a common linguistic family with Sanskrit.
The Hindu cultural fluorescence -- although Vedic fundamentalists will tell
you differently -- was fueled by an influx of artists and mystagogues who
had been kicked out of Constantine's Christian Empire. The Golden Age of
Hinduism was ~ 500-700 AD.
So, there are many similarities between western (mediterranean) paganism and
Hinduism, but the causal relation is not the one you imply. My source,
incidentally, is _Oriental Mythology_, Volume 3 of Joseph Campbell's _The
Masks of God_ series. It's worth a read to anyone interested in world
religions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Price | tp...@cs.cmu.edu | "De do do do, de da da da." -S
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Huntbach
> Again, I'm a generalizing a bit (because I don't feel like writing a book
> on the subject just now), but to deny the changes is absurd and can only
> be motivated by dogmatism. Certainly there's an amount of continuity between
> the OT and the NT in how they portray "god", but the two testaments never-
> theless describe two quite different beings.
Jesus is certainlu continually telling the Jews that their image of God is
wrong or incomplete, but you cannot point to anywhere whre he is suggesting
"you are worshipping one god, but I am telling you to worship another". On
the contrary, he continually appeals to the Old Testament prophets, and in
the Transfiguration actually appears with Moses and Elijah. This above all is
the guarantee that the New Testament God is a continuation of the Old Testament
one.
Matthew Huntbach
arnold v. lesikar
>
> I believe the early scripture is rather monolatric, i.e it warns against
> worship of other gods but doesn't deny their existense.
Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the Lord says - Israel's King and Redeemer;
the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me
there is no God." (NIV)
>
> Christians recognize that they don't know the nature of "god" except for
> some rather vague characteristics described in the Bible. How do Christians
> know they worship exactly /that/ idea of "god" they are supposed to? They
> don't. I bet every Christian has a slightly individual idea of what "god" is
> like; some will place more emphasis on the loving aspects of "god", some
> will see him more as a judge. In addition to that, the culture the Christian
> lives in will have enormous effect on his idea of "god".
>
But this is true of human beings as well. Look at all the different
ideas that people had of Richard Nixon. To some he was a hero. To
others, he was a villain, and a third group will see him as a tragic
figure. No human being knows the complete truth about the character of
another. Different friends and acquaintances would describe a person
differently. But still it is only one person that we are talking
about.
Why should it be different with God? Different people, and even
different Bible writers have different views of his character, but it
is still the same God. Indeed, an infinite God should be expected to
have a far greater depth of character than a finite human being. Hence
it is natural that He will be more difficult to understand and will
exhibit more _apparent_ contradictions than a mere human being. If
everyone had the same understanding of Him, he would not be living; He
would be a mere image, and idol, a figurehead, a puppet.
> So we get a very wide spectrum of "gods" inside Christianity. You can say
> that these "gods" comprise a whole that is the Christian god; fine, but why
> stop there? If you have people worshipping a god that has basically the same
> qualities as described in the Bible, just calling it by some other name, may
> be worship it slightly differently (and there's a wide spectrum of worship
> inside Christianity, too, as I'm sure you know) what reason do have for
> excluding them from the whole? And if they don't call themselves "christians",
> so what? They could still be more "christian" than you.
>
The sun is far bright to look at directly. One sees reflections,
dancing spots of light on the waves, flashes of sunlight reflected
from cars, the steady illumination on the sidewalk on a clear summer's
day, the red sun setting in the West, not to bright to look at all.
There is the occasional sun in eclipse, and the photographs of the sun
in astronomy textbooks depicting that luminary in a way that no one
has ever seen it with the unaided eye. There is the sun clothed in
clouds, a foggy bright spot in a ceiling of gray. We can imagine the
sun as it must be seen from elsewhere in the galaxy - a mere point of
light indistinguishable from any other star. Now with all these suns,
which is the real sun? Could it be that the earth really is
illuminated by a myriad of suns? You might call this theory
poly-solarism in analogy with the polytheism that you are peddling
here. :)
> "Gods" are ideas that may or may not reflect a deeper reality; what names
> they carry is totally irrelevant. It's the characteristics that matter, and
> they always overlap to some extent. Quite often, the actual differences
> between the ideas of "god" between two religions are smaller than what can
> be found inside one religion.
>
Many facets on the surface of a diamond do not mean that there is more
than just the single diamond supporting those facets. I think that
your argument above is quite ... er... superficial. :) (Check out the
etymology!)
> My point is that you can't draw a clear line between the "Christian God" and
> "other gods". Therefore, you can't at the same time say that "there is only
> one god" *and* prohibit worship of "other gods", unless you clearly define
> what the "other gods" are like. If you don't do that, and I don't think the
> the Bible does it, you have two choices: either say that "all gods are one
> God", which would make worshipping "other gods" impossible, or say that
> "other gods exist, but you must not worship them".
>
There are distinctions drawn between Yahweh and other Gods drawn in
the Bible. For example Isaiah 46:9 "I am God and there is none like
me." In Exodus it is written that none can see his face and live.
Isaiah 44:20 states that an idol is a lie. Clearly the idea here is
that God is like nothing else. Thus any God that may be represented by
an image is not the God of the Bible. Because whatever image you
construct, it is not like HIM. Whatever it may represent, an eagle, or
a women or a jackal headed human, it is not Him.
Now the ideas that we have of God may be fuzzy. Of course! For how can
a finite mind contain an accurate idea of an eternal infinite living
God? But the fact that the edges around our ideas of God are fuzzy
does not mean that we cannot differentiate between ideas of God at
all. After all, the atmosphere of the earth has no definite boundary -
the atmosphere just decreases in pressure and fades off into the
vacuum of interplanetary space as you go higher in altitude. But the
lack of a definite surface to the atmosphere of the earth does not
mean that we cannot distinguish between the atmosphere of the earth
and the atmospheres of planet Venus or Mars!
In the same way our ideas of Yahweh in the Bible may be fuzzy. That
does not mean that we cannot distinguish between Him and the Wiccan
Goddess or between Him and the Hindu Brahma.
sincerely,
arn
les...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
Lloyd Zusman
>different Bible writers have different views of his character, but it
>is still the same God. Indeed, an infinite God should be expected to
>have a far greater depth of character than a finite human being. Hence
>it is natural that He will be more difficult to understand and will
>exhibit more _apparent_ contradictions than a mere human being. If
>everyone had the same understanding of Him, he would not be living; He
>would be a mere image, and idol, a figurehead, a puppet.
I am in wholehearted agreement. There are over 5 billion people in
the world right now, and there are over 5 billion different ways to
view and relate to God. And in my opinion, all of these different
ways are "right" in the sense that God is easily capable of relating
to each and every person in the way that best suits and serves that
person.
It's like the old parable of the 5 blind men and the elephant
("moderned up" slightly):
5 blind men who have never encountered an elephant before all come
across one. The man who is near the elephant's tail, reaches out and
grabs it, and then asserts, "An elephant is like a rope."
The second blind man, near the elephant's ear, touches it and states,
"An elephant is like a blanket."
The third blind man happens to grab the elephant's trunk when he
reaches out, and he says, "No ... an elephant is like a fire hose."
The fourth man is by the elephant's leg: "An elephant is like a tree."
The fifth man, near the elephant's torso says, "An elephant is like a
Sherman tank."
Which man is right? Well, all of them, of course.
Mere human intellect and perception cannot completely conceive of God,
and hence, we are all like the 5 bind man trying to make sense of the
elephant.
Even with the help of the Bible, we cannot fully grasp the totality of
God ... witness how many different shades of meaning and
interpretation result when we attempt to extract the "true" meaning of
this book. Even those who take the Bible literally and believe in its
total inerrancy disagree with one another now and then over the true
meaning contained in parts of this book ... as is clearly shown in the
debates in this newsgroup, for example.
There is nothing wrong with this, in my opinion. We cannot use our
human intellects and perceptual abilities to completely grasp the
totality of God and the Bible, and this fact helps to illustrate just
how great and wonderful God is.
This is why that for me, the more scientific knowledge I learn, the
more my faith, belief, love, and wonder about God all increase ...
the more I learn about God's creations, the more I realize how great
this creation is and how much about it and God I DON'T know and CANNOT
understand ... and therefore the more in loving awe of God I become.
And therefore, I believe we are suffering from misplaced pride and
arrogance if we presume to assert that OUR way of knowing and loving
God is the only way. God loves us all. There are ways to take the
words in the Bible literally that still allow for other ways of
knowing God than the ones which we happen to choose for ourselves.
I know this to be true for me, since I am inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And I know that YOUR way is just as true for you.
God bless us all.
--
Lloyd Zusman 01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
l...@well.sf.ca.us ^ Indentation: use it or lose it.
Scott A Mayo
>>The Bible talks of gods loosely. It describes man as a sort of god in at
>>least one verse (sorry, no concordance to hand, as usual).
>alah...@cc.helsinki.fi (Antti A Lahelma) writes:
>Interesting. This happens to be a rather common idea among neo-pagans, and
>also one of the main accusations that Christians seem to have against
>pagans. Could you try to find the verse so I can check it?
The moderator did: John 10:34 ff. I'll save you the cross reference
effort; Jesus is thought to have been quoting Psa 82, a bizarre (to my
mind) little piece for which Jesus found an interesting application.
Given the context, I am not sure that Jesus meant quite the same thing
that neo-pagans do by the idea of human divinity. Clearly, the verse is
interesting in that context; but there is a dark irony, I think
intentional, on Jesus's calling on that verse when facing a crowd intent
on stoning Him to death - the psalm He was quoting talks about a lack of
justice. Contemplating that psalm and the situation Jesus used it in makes
for an interesting hours' meditation. It is not a meditation that lends
itself to the elevated view held by some neo-pagans. See also John 8.
>>It talks of the worship of other gods, even while pointing out that such
>>worship is folly and the object of worship nonexistant.
>I believe the early scripture is rather monolatric, i.e it warns against
>worship of other gods but doesn't deny their existense.
This is commonly claimed, though it is worth noting that the "big three"
religions that actually rely on the text all happen to be monotheistic. If
you are in a position to demonstrate from scripture, or just from the
first few books of the Bible, that "acknowledge but do not worship" is the
actual proper stance for Christians, Jews and Moslems, you will be in a
nice position to open the religious debate of the century. I don't think
you can, though. The references I've seen to multiple gods appear
figurative; one can't tell if the writer was mocking "other-theists" or
merely the gods they chose. On the other hand, the verses that get
explicit about the non-existance of other gods are, well, explicit, and
some of them are early in the OT.
>Christians recognize that they don't know the nature of "god" except for
>some rather vague characteristics described in the Bible.
Vague? Vague? The OT is object lesson after object lesson about God's
nature, goals and personality; the NT is a collection of yet more such
object lessons, in the person of Jesus; and then a generous scoop of
theologizing and explanation on the side. This is a claim I haven't heard
before. One gets a very clear view of God by reading the Bible through.
Heck, just read Psalms, and see if you don't get the picture. The Jews and
early Christians >clearly< felt that they knew who God was, and more
clearly yet, who He wasn't, and they also felt they were in a position to
explain it. I talk about why they felt they had that authority below.
>How do Christians know they worship exactly /that/ idea of "god" they are
>supposed to? They don't. I bet every Christian has a slightly individual
>idea of what "god" is like; ...
Of course they do. This is obvious. Every person has a different and
unique view of President Clinton, for pity's sake, so I expect there might
be some variation in views of God. What you seem to be missing is that
Christians have agreed, implicitly, that these variations are largely
unimportant and that they generally recognise each other's views as
reflecting the same God that their own does. Most of us recognise that we
only know as much as we can understand of God's relevation, and realise
there is much more we don't know; but then, God doesn't hold us
responsible for what we can't know.
>So we get a very wide spectrum of "gods" inside Christianity.
This is a case of step-by-step exaggeration. I've hung out in various
denominations of Christianity over the years and known a number of people
active in churches in other countries (African, European, Asian). There is
a >wide< difference in worship style, cultural application of scripture,
and so on. On God and Jesus, though, consensus is strong. Very strong.
>If you have people worshipping a god that has basically the same qualities
>as described in the Bible, just calling it by some other name,..
Then we have an interesting case at hand. A few folk have made a case for
certain American indian groups' worship, for example. That's a claim I
haven't checked out myself. I recently posted a longish article into s.r.c
(look for the posting with the clearly mangled subject and my name) which
describes why I think neo-paganism does NOT posit a god(dess) that has
"basically the same" qualities as God.
I've poked my nose at a few religions over the years, and one of the
questions foremost in my mind is "is this the God I already know,
repackaged?" Because I'm reasonably sure I'd recognise Him. I've
experienced Him in my own life, heard about Him from others, and checked
out His claims, as far as I could, in scripture. The parts I understand at
all tally pretty well: and don't tally at all with claims made in other
religions about their own gods.
Jesus promised to be in the midst of His followers, wherever and whenever
they were. I'm reasonably sure I'd recognise Him. Jesus Himself claimed
that His sheep would recognise His voice.
>And if they don't call themselves "christians", so what? They could still
>be more "christian" than you.
You're mixing terms. A "Christian" is a believer in a specific doctrine.
No one can be more Christian than a Christian, any more than a dog can be
doggier than a dog. (I get irked when the term christian gets dragged
around; whether the beliefs are right or wrong, let's let the word mean
what the dictionary says it does so we have some idea what we are talking
about. Read Schaeffer's _The God who is there_ for discussion on why this
can be important. His talk of "contentless banners" strikes me as right on.)
It is always possible to suppose that some other religion can be closer to
what God wants than Christianity is. (And one often feels that way when
one is a Christian reading history). However, you have launched into the
realm of "they could.." and "if you have.." and other speculatives. You
could be bold, right here in the enemy's camp, so to speak, and propose
which religion you think specifically has God's favor above Christianity,
or at least explain for Him why He has no preferences at all, if that's
the stance.
>"Gods" are ideas that may or may not reflect a deeper reality; ...
To you. You are in a minority position in s.r.c on this. To me, God is an
entity, a real being, and >that< is the ultimate reality on which all else
is founded. The "ideas" you speak of are merely human understandings or
misunderstandings of what that God really is, and so ought to bow to that
reality, or be recognised as the illusions and confusions that they are.
You aren't bringing anything to the table in this discussion that
indicates that there is reason to believe that Christianity is not the
closest to that understanding. But you are missing the deeper point as
well.
What you fail to realise is that the question is not - has never been -
who is "most right" in understanding God, anyway. God is understandable
only in terms of His promises to us. We understand, when it comes to God,
only what He shows us. God knows that, and so do Christians. What is
important - what alone matters - is that we attempt to understand God as
He has revealed Himself - and that is what Christians claim to do. They
haven't >deduced< God's nature better than paelo-pagans or neo-pagans;
they have only accepted and listened to his self-relevation, given in
specific times and places to specific people, out of love for and benefit
to mankind. God has (Christians believe) spoken to us of how we are to
follow Him and told us that other forms are unacceptable. How we are to
perceive God is more or less a given. We are, we think, to the best of our
individual abilities, trying to follow God as >He< has asked >us< to
follow Him. This is why there is such wide unanimity of understanding
among Christians about who God is - it is by consensus and based, we
believe, on relevation.
Ultimately, you are nibbling on granite here. Christians believe they are
following God's own leading, not merely one possible path among dozens or
millions. We really do - whether you will believe it or not - think in
terms of a real, concrete God who has expressed preferences for us. There
are, I admit it candidly, a few things in Christianity I'd cheerfully
discard, aspects of the faith I find inconvenient to live by or irksome to
defend to non-believers. However, I don't discard them, because Jesus, who
has bought me, insists that they are >non-negotiable<. You are not likely
to alter them by whispering a few sentences based on "ifs".
>Quite often, the actual differences between the ideas of "god" between two
>religions are smaller than what can be found inside one religion.
Well, I contest that, of course, in the JudeoChristian case. Certainly if
you want to play semantic games, such as lumping, for example, the New Age
movement in as a Christian offshoot (the retching sound in the background
is me), then you can neatly show that Christianity includes the worship of
small furry creatures from Alpha Centuri, and everything will be easy.
This madness that "all gods are one god" is of recent origin. Go suggest
in soc.religion.islam that, as all gods are one, so Allah is effectively
Kali. Actually, don't. I don't want to be responsible for the painful
consequences.
>My point is that you can't draw a clear line between the "Christian God"
>and "other gods".
Sure I can. See my other recent post on the topic. Numbers of actual
theologians over the centuries have done a better job than I ever will, of
course.
Christianity is focused, completely and utterly, on the relevation of God
made though Jesus, the atonement for our sins made by Jesus, and in the
example set for us by Jesus. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus! Set aside Him and I
agree Christianity has nothing to show for itself; then Christianity is no
better - indeed is worse - than Judiasm or Wicca. Include Him and no other
religion has anything to offer that matters. It is not for no
reason that hymns are written with lyrics like "you may have all this
world; give me Jesus!"
>Does any of this make sense to you? :)
Not alot, I'm afraid. I can't for the life of me see what you gain by
dishonoring God in the fashion that you do, by elevating man's confused
and sometimes mangled imaginings to the level of God's relevation, despite
God's explicit warnings on the topic. But unless and until I might
convince you that Christian scripture holds the key to finding Jesus, and
that everything proceeds from there, I doubt I'll change your mind. I'm
praying for you, though.
-----
"Two men say they're Jesus. _One_ of them must be wrong..."
-Dire Straights
hip...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
> angry mob was threatening to burn her house down, accusing her of witchcraft
> and harbouring zombies. There was a group of isangomas there trying to smell
> out the zombies.
I'm very interested in finding out where this happened. Please provide more
details as this seems very strange and hard to believe. What are isangomas?
Antti A Lahelma
>Paleo-pagans feared witchcraft a great deal more than Christians did - and
>very often still do.
This is a false generalization. I hope I don't have to start yet another
thread on the renaissance witch-hunts of Europe; collective hysteria can
hardly get any worse than that in any type of society, Christian or other-
wise.
What religion the people practice is really rather irrelevant; both Chris-
tians and paleo-pagans are capable of acting irrationally. Both are also
capable of adopting a scientific worldview and 'reason', which tend to make
people rather immune to 'witchcraft'. Witch-hunts came to an end when the
Age of Reason dawned in Europe.
Tim Smith
klh...@vax.oxford.ac.uk wrote:
> No absolute truth? You mean we each make our own? I must say, I find this
> implausible. If a plane flies overhead, everyone looks up. If innocents are
> slaughtered in Bosnia, everyone reads about it in the paper. If God exists,
> then he exists. If he doesn't, he doesn't. I can't create him.
It can be verified that a plane flew overhead -- you hear that plane with
your ears (or perhaps feel the vibration if you're deaf?). It can be
verified that innocents are being slaughtered in Bosnia -- you could
actually go to Bosnia and view the carnage, if it takes that to prove it to
you. However, you cannot prove the existence of God, or more accurately,
you can't prove that the Christian conception of deity is the
One-True-Right-And-Only-Way (tm), via those criteria. You'll have to have
a better analogy than that.
> I'd take issue with your statement that "there is no dogma." If each of you is
> creating his or her own universe, you must reject the proposition that the
> universe exists in a particular way, and that no amount of "elevated opinion"
> can change that. This is our difference. You don't believe things exist,
> except in your own mind. I believe things exist outside of myself, and that
> therefore, they exist for everyone.
I, too, believe that things exist outside of myself -- but there are
varying ways of looking at those things. The entity at issue here is that
which created/runs the universe, and on this count, I do not see that
creator as Yahweh. I do not, however, deny that your way is a valid one.
It is simply not mine.
Laura
Steve Hayes
> My point is that you can't draw a clear line between the "Christian God" and
> "other gods". Therefore, you can't at the same time say that "there is only
> one god" *and* prohibit worship of "other gods", unless you clearly define
> what the "other gods" are like. If you don't do that, and I don't think the
> the Bible does it, you have two choices: either say that "all gods are one
> God", which would make worshipping "other gods" impossible, or say that
> "other gods exist, but you must not worship them".
>
> Does any of this make sense to you? :)
The Bible is not given to fine definitions, but I believe that it is
nevertheless possible to establish links between various parts - this is
what theology does, among other things.
There are many different Christian theologies of religion. I'll put forward
one, which I believe is supported by the Bible.
There is a distinction between YHWH and "the gods". There are spiritual
beings called "gods" or "sons of gods" (bene elohim). I'm not a Hebrew
expert, but I have been told that in semitic languages it is common to use
the term "son of" to emphasise the nature of something. The "sons of the
prophets" were prophets, organized professionally. So "sons of gods" are
gods, as a kind of generic class. But, unlike YHWH, they are created. There
is a hint that each nation was given its own religion (Deut 32:8-9), its own
god.
What was evil was not so much for those nations to worship their gods, but
for ISRAEL to do so, because Israel was YHWH's peculiar people, without a
created god as an intermediary.
But, the story goes on, the gods messed up (Psalm 82). They ruled their
nations unjustly, and injustice, oppression, corruption and fraud were the
order of the day. The gods were in fact connected closely with human rule.
Divine kingship was quite common. The Roman religion of emperor worship was
a prominent example of it. You could look at this another way - the "gods"
were divinized abstractions of the powers that ruled human life. Political
power, economic power, military power and various other kinds of power. In
the New Testament the names of these powers reinforces this - rulers
(archontes), authorities (exousie), thrones (throni).
In Psalm 82 the psalmist looks forward to a time when these powers will no
longer dominate, and Jesus hints (John 12:31) that the time has come to do
that.
So the resultant Christian theology of religions is that YHWH himself has
come to take a hand, and "religions" with their gods are obsolete. With the
coming of Christ, it is not Israel only, but anyone, who can have a direct
relationship with YHWH, and so the Christian Church is open to all.
Now this is obviously a Christian interpretation of the gods, and of the
various religions of the world. Just as there can be, for example, a
Christian theology of Hinduism, there can be a Hindu theology of
Christianity (and Islam, and Buddhism, and whatever).
So yes, to an extent what you say does make sense to me. And I would agree
with the last statement - "other gods exist, but don't worship them".
============================================================
Steve Hayes, Editorial Department, University of South Africa
P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: haye...@risc1.unisa.ac.za Fidonet: 5:7106/20.1
steve...@p1.f20.n7106.z5.fidonet.org
Richard Schennberg
It seemes to me that this just changed the acceptable vocabulary rather
than imparting greater intelligence. Out with demons, angels, sin and
righteousness, in with schizophrenia, paranormal, negative, and positive.
> people rather immune to 'witchcraft'. Witch-hunts came to an end when the
^^^^^^^^^^^
Unfortunately, the Russian Pograms and the German Holocaust were
the largest witch-hunts of all time. I fail to see the improvement of
making Jews and intellectual dissidents the targets.
> Age of Reason dawned in Europe.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm still waiting for this to happen. ;-)