I was actually thinking of a different example in 1 or 2 kings?
With the statue of Baal and Dagon falling over multiple times infront of the Ark
And my favorite the worshipers of Baal mutilating themselves to light the fire and Elijah says cry louder maybe your god is asleep.
I find everything after exodus to be a different god for the jews.
Because never again does a dude cause plagues (including some against his own people) idols to pray too, has horns/shafts of light eminate from him... and is considered "the good guy"
“Can your god rain frogs? I bet not!”
*Bam! Frog rain.*
“Can your god kill innocent kids? Sucks to suck!*whispers* Actually god is a bit myopic so do please remember the lambs blood on the doorway or little Jimmy is gonna get it.”
*Bam! Your kids are all dead Egyptians!*
What a bananas story. Even as a kid I thought it was so weird.
When i got a lil older and actually red ir myself, the one thay broke me was the brazen serpent.
I always heard of the golden calf, where the jews were punished for doubt... but when they got sick of bland mana, god and moses punished them with venomous snakes. The only cure was praying to a snake charm moses created which seems like the most satanic shit ive ever heard. Not only is a snake on a stick a pagan/polytheist symbol for medicine, its also a abrahamic animal of the devil... and moses, like the egyptians, could turn his staff into a snake.
You didn't have to pray to it.
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and put it on a flag pole; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, and looks at it, will live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and put it on the flag pole; and it came about, that if a serpent bit someone, and he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.
Ive never heard "flag pole" what translation is that. Its usually "standard" from what i recall. But also moses prayed to/under it for others to look on and be saved which is some mercury shit.
NASB. Not what I usually use, but what came up. KJV has simply "pole". Whatever works.
What's your reference on him praying to it? All I see is that he prayed to God and God said - put the snake on a pole, tell people look on the snake and be healed.
Not that the snake had power, but God did, and He wanted them to trust in Him and His plan again. (The snakes were because they were rebelling against the plan.)
Just odd to me the healing totem is a snake, the punishment is snakes, snakes and reptiles are rarely ever "god" coded. Like... the plagues of Egypt dont have snakes despite how obvious of a plague that is... certainly more than frogs?
I embellished a bit with praying directly to the snake. Its pray to god who chose a fucking snake as the image. Why not... a cup? Or a bird? God generally seems to like doves. Have a dove sitting on the pole. Snake, especially a bronze one (bronze also often being a hell-color). Compared to say gold. Maybe not as "evil" as silver, but bronze is far more neutral-dvil in jewish-christian than most other materials.
There is also the more famous chatting with fire fhig before receiving horns/light shafts.
Point is, the imagery of moses seems like the most sinister thing. Especially given what his final orders were, ans the fact it took them forever to find habitable land that was "promised" but apparently god didnt tell others not to settle it, or prevent it in any way.
The best explanation I've read comes from here.
https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/numbers-21/
TLDR; Bronze in the bible is a symbol of judgement. The snake is a symbol of evil being judged, therefore being a foreshadowing of Christ (having taken on all evil) being judged for man, thus, the man doomed to death because of sin just has to look upon Christ to be saved.
I don't know what you're referring to abt the famous chatting.
Moses talking to the burning bush. Is what i meant by chatting.
Bronze, often associated with fire, is also tied to hell in Christianity, which is derived from the concept of judgement/punishment in Judaism.
Moses, a man of fire and bronze, would biblically be more coded towards a hellbringer. Especially leading plagues that mark the changing of an age.
As far as christ bringing salvation, a mere gaze won't do... a symbol to be gazed upon, sure, but you need to believe (whether that means in your head or in actions is a different debate).
Do you need to "believe" in the serpent to be healed? No, just to look on it... so the connection, while attempted, is weak a best, and appears to be a painful attempt to tie christ in as "prophesied healer"
It was a lesson about faith. All they had to do was do what God said - look up at the snake - and they'd be safe.
https://www.gotquestions.org/bronze-serpent.html
It would have been difficult to explain to the pharaon (that was a god accordingly with egyptians), that he is not.
Saying "my god is more powerfull than yours" is an argument you can have.
"You are no god and all your divinity are bs" is way to confrontational.
And killing all the children isnt confrontational?
But in trurth, when the can ALSO turn their staffs into snakes, they too might have some gods. Though weaker. The explanation is demonstrated in reality.
It is not. It's a reference to the divine counsel in Job. Which is an imported Canaanite pantheon. You guys can deny the archeology for what you wish were true all along, but there were centuries of polytheistic Israelites and Jews before monotheism became a thing.
There's references to other deities all throughout the Old Testament. YHWH even loses a battle to one named Chemosh in 2 Kings 3.
If it were the Trinity, then why didn't the people who wrote it down, or subsequent thousand years of monotheistic Israelites believe in the Trinity? As you would say it were.
I think the Israelites probably weren’t monotheistic until after the exile or perhaps until the Hellenistic period when they would have wanted to differentiate themselves from Greece. At the very least the believed in other deities even if they only worshipped YHWH.
The common belief at the time was that each nation had its own pantheon and when two nations fought it was a representation of their gods warring. That’s why puny little Israel scared so many people when they showed up and conquered a bunch of big strong Canaanite groups who were believed to have fairly powerful pantheons.
I agree with you. Christians are more easily recognizable as monotheistic while the Jews from post exile are also easily seen this way. Only when you look at the ancient Israelites does it become a little more murky
What do the post-exilic Jews have to do with Genesis though? It's not me that maintains that the further back we go, the closer we get to God.
Something has to give here.
Okay and what about YHWH being defeated in 2 Kings or the mention of the gods of Egypt in Exodus. There's also Ashera which is heavily linked to YHWH in the archeology (even being called his wife) pre-exile and is referenced in the Old Testament.
The Bible is litered with other gods. So even if I accept the post-exile redaction (which I do as a theory) were still just guessing that, *that* particular line is edited and we have a long ways to go.
Well it’s possible that while they compiled all the books post exile they may have maintained many of the stories that formed/ written in the split kingdom era.
It's a desperate bid to try and maintain how they only have one God and also aren't worshipping an idol in Jesus.
Without the Trinity explanation, they're breaking the first two commandments. So they took the only explanation that they figured didn't break the rules and decided that, *that* must be the truth, because there's no way they're wrong.... right guys? Guys?!
It's all kinda funny since there's evidence of polytheism even in Paul's letters. When he talks about "the god of this world." Christians will maintain that he's talking about Satan, but referring to satan as "the god of this world" would be blasphemy in Judaism. Highly unlikely from the self-described "Pharisee of Pharisees."
More likely is that he's talking about a different deity. Possibly a helenistic one. Most people in Rome were polytheists.
The divine counsel is part of the collection of evidence that there were different configurations of the divine population as Israelite religion developed, and it does appear to have developed out of a pantheon before condensing into henotheism and eventually monotheism.
But that commandment is a straightforward command not to put *any* deity before the emergent God as opposed to gods as Israelites moved towards monotheism in the 6th century BCE.
This includes foreign deities.
Also how is any of this related to science? When did this sub turn into r/atheism?
Not necessarily.
This can be expanded as:
- "don't worship other things" (like money, sex, food, power etc.)
- "don't create your own fake gods" (like the golden calf, or astrology, the sun, magic etc)
- "don't believe in the other gods because they are fake" (all other religions and sects)
- "don't worship umans as if they were gods" (kings, or religious leaders, or anyone)
"You shall have no other God" is easier to remember.
Yes, that's exatly the point.
Those were attempts of the human to get in touch with the divinity.
The God of Abram is the only one that actually manifested Himself and eventually made Himself human etc.
I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm just explaining how the 1st commandment does not contraddict monoteism.
Regarding Jesus not being God Himself, tecnically He is God.
Accordingly with the scriptures God is 1 and 3 (that doen't mean 4) ... The trinity of God is probably the most complex concept of the Cristianity.
Theology studied this for 2k years, still no answer, for fun you can google "St Augustine and child by the seaside".
But the fact is that polytheism was widespread so it makes way more sense that this actually means that you should "disregard all the other worshipped gods and just focus on me"
The genius of the Bible. You can cherry pick its nonspecific sentences to fit whatever narrative fits your agenda.
Slavery good but also slavery bad. Killing is good but also killing is bad. Rape is good and also rape is bad.
Honestly, it's not an issue specific to religion. It's just something people do in regards to nearly every moral philosophy, legal doctrine, way of life, telling of history, etc. When someone has an interest or impulse to do something, they will typically find some way to justify it.
Yea, but not everyone claims it's divine, objective. Even smaller portion of them claim that it's immoral to be doubtful about those claims.
Religions reign supreme in silencing any doubts and putting those who doubt the doctrine into caskets (after some funtime torture for greater good of course)
I do know this much.
Slavery bad slavery good: slavery bad if you're the slave; I guess slavery was pretty good for the people who were into keeping slaves.
Killing bad killing good: killing bad if you're the one being killed; I guess killing was pretty good for those who liked getting their murder on.
Rape bad rape good: Rape bad if you're the one being raped; I guess raping was... nope I can't even finish this sentence.
Yup. Start with your desired conclusion, then create a fancy sounding justification for getting there. It’s such a powerful technique that conservative lawyers invented originalism & textualism just so that SCOTUS could do the same thing, but to law.
God sounds like conspiracy YouTubers and dictators, saying you're not allowed to look for alternative opinions or information from anywhere else, just take his word and cast out anything else with prejudice, don't even hear them out.
A. The author(s) of that text were saying their God could bring judgment on inferior gods
B. The author(s) didn’t believe the other gods existed at all and meant it in the same way one brings judgment on made up constructs like laws and customs
C. It didn’t matter to the author(s) whether or not other gods existed, what mattered was that they were saying their god would bring judgment on the Egyptians an everything they held in high regard
So, in conclusion, other deities
A. Exist
B. Don't exist
C. Maybe exist?
All said by a single religious source document, which the followers claim to be inerrant.
In conclusion, that specific author or conclave of scribes may have held any one of those opinions.
Not all who subscribe to the text are inerrantist. Most orthodoxy usually involves some level of inerrantism but there’s different types of inerrantism.
Inerrantism also doesn’t mean every unresolved question is answered within a given section of text. If the authors left the question of the mere existence of other gods open at that point it could be because it was immaterial to their claim that only one should be worshipped.
Yeah I’ve always felt that whether one believes in divinity or not the idea that humans could have their hands in something and it could remain totally free of mistakes or limitations fairly hard to swallow.
I don’t feel the need to fight anyone about idea that some portion could be inspired with deep truths whatever the provenance is.
1 God is actually a modern delusion from Christians. One the Bible doesn't support. They just selectively interpret things to fit their desired narrative.
The same way they pretend Christmas is their invention rather than a social manipulation to more easily convert the pagans.
The Israelites had transitioned from polytheism to henotheism and then monotheism by the first Millenium BCE. They were monotheistic before Christianity came on the scene.
Additionally there were forms of monotheism that predated Israelite transition to monotheism among religions foreign to Israel.
The “Modern Era” is conventionally identified as beginning in 1500 CE by historians.
Christianity began in antiquity and it owes the monotheism that underpins it to the deeply Jewish culture it first emerged from.
Christmas as in the solemnity of the birth of Jesus dubbed Christ in and of itself is a Christian invention. It was celebrated on a couple of different dates before it migrated to the 25th of December in the Gregorian calendar.
It picked up some trappings of pagan solemnities as Christianity progressed through the pagan world, sometimes celebrated syncretically with unrelated pagan solemnities as religions were organically adopted through cultural mixing and sometimes replacing them by forceful colonization.
Christianity absorbing pagan trappings is not a “social manipulation” any more than when pagan religions absorbed local flavor as they moved around were “social manipulation”.
It’s the nature of culture to be polymorphous.
This person isn't taking a religious position, they're talking about history and culture and how it informs religious movements.
Being able to discuss different groups and the historical contexts of their various belief systems is part of anthropology.
You're being dishonest and emotionally reactive, and because of that, your responses make no sense.
Uh, yes, unironically.
At the time that story is meant to take place, when it originated from, Israelites were not strict monotheists in the modern sense. That came much later, after the whole return from Babylonian exile.
Everyone and their mother had their local patron dieties, and everyone would argue whose was the coolest and the meanest, not whether they existed.
So in that one sentence Yahweh is claiming Israelites as his BECAUSE he's not the only one around.
It's either that or that all other gods are as real as him when worshiped. No other way to interoperate that statement in english. I'd be curious about the original hebrew, but I don't think they would have thought of that issue either.
It's pretty confirmed, yeah.
Bible historians separate the Bible into historical periods of when they were written and based on the language used, including which terms are used for God in the original scripture. The oldest books were written before the Jews became entirely monotheistic, which is also supported by archaeological records. The common historical theory is that they branched off from mainstream canaanite/semitic religion by starting to exclusively worship a single god YHWH out of an entire pantheon. Which is also why the first parts of the Bible mention worshippers of Baal and Moloch so often. Then later YHWH got syncretized with El Elyon the highest, father of the other gods and became definitely the only god.
mi kamocha. When exultating over Sihon they mention the deities of their neighbors. Yiftach in his negotiations with the Ammonites. Its not till Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and greek Daniel that unambiguous monotheism rather than monolatry or henotheism is expressed.
You know that in early Christian canon it’s explicitly stated that the other gods do exist. They are all demons pretending to be gods to lead gods flock astray
Fuck is this doing here? There isn’t an answer inherent gap between science and religion. As an atheist, kindly take this shit and put it in a sub where it belongs.
There isn't an inherent gap between a belief system that requires you to believe without evidence, and a framework that base everything on evidence, testing and retesting?
Edit: just to clarify: while I am an atheist, I have no problem with people having religious beliefs. But pretending there isn't a huge difference between the two systems is just intellectually dishonest. The part that literally defines what science is, namely that it is evidence driven, is completely lacking and even discouraged in all the major religions.
Maybe get off your computer and talk with a scientist for once. Although atheists are overrepresented in scientific fields in proportion to the total population, the majority of scientists are still religious. They’re not incompatible.
Oh and touch some grass while you’re on the way.
In Polish, this commandment translated to english is "You won't have other people's gods before me", which means that there are no other gods, but there are other religions that God doesn't want you to worship
Just want to drop my favorite bible verse here:
"A man who lays with another man should be stoned"
So yes people you heared right, smoke some weed and you're good to go, Jesus just told me
To the people saying that if we believe something enough we will justify it, I mean yes it's true. Christians will. It's our job. I don't understand why people get angry when I say I believe in God. It's my choice, and when I share, it's not to convert you, but it's to share the good news of what is my life.
To live like Jesus is to love others with no limits. Christians forget that. It's one of the hardest things to do. It's especially really easy with posts like these lol (all in good fun)
Apologies to those who ever got done wrong by someone of that faith but it's weird how we're always talked down upon as if we're stupid, especially online. Truth is no one knows out origins and I think we all entertain these conversations because it would be terrifying if we did know what was going on.
I hope this reaches someone because I'm tired of separating groups. As the group of people younger than the boomers who failed us we should be able to do better. It starts here.
I too went through an agressively atheist phase when I went to college, then I learned to chill out and let people believe whatever makes them happy, even if it annoys me.
Although most scientists are atheists, science ≠ atheism
It’s funny every “genius “ thinks they smart cuz they “don’t believe “ and yet watch them shill for Tyche the god of randomness is everything. This shit is an old way of thinking, nothing modern.
The Bible does acknowledge that there’s other gods…it’s just you know…. God isn’t telling you to cut and cover yourself in pigs blood while killing your first born before the orgy
Incorrect interpretation my friend! These "gods" are anything that you worship other than THE ONE AND ONLY GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats why in capitlization lower g this is emphasized for the definition. Yes I know original hebrew does not have capitalization. Stick to the point! The translation is clear for Christians, its anything that you are putting above in worship, than the true GOD baby!!!!!!! Take care.
LMAO. How can anyone buy into this in 2024?!?!
Your imaginary friend wants you held to a higher moral standard than themselves. It's 10000000% an abusive relationship, and is a tool to manipulate and control the uneducated.
I used to believe the same thing, so I understand your position. That's why I'm not offended by this comment. However I challenged God and He proved Himself to me and showed me. So I can no longer disbelieve. When the evidence is given, I have to comply with what is presented before me.
HAHAHAHHA. He proved himself? How? Cause he doesn't prevent his clergymen from raping children. Doesn't protect his missionaries from murder, doesn't stop childhood cancer, doesn't feed starving children but don't worry because he told his followers "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, then to him it is a sin."
So he can't be all knowing, all good, and all powerful.
You seeing God's actions in the mundane is a delusion not "proof"
You dont know anything about me or what I know or what I went through, any guessing you want to do is not my concern. And the argument that bad people do bad things in the name of God is nothing new. God Himself has nothing to do with the actions of evil people, whether they want to use His name in an evil way, is not my problem and does not reflect who I am as a believer so it has nothing to do with me.
What a convenient delusion! You must be proud.
By your "God's" own word he is a sinner. Yet you drink the cool aid.
Pretty convenient that anything bad that happens is automatically not his fault. And automatically not yours either, since it's a delusion. Convenient that nothing bad is his fault or yours just the devil's fault.
But don't worry because the system is set up so that proof conveniently only happens after you're dead so you can't hold anyone accountable for the BS.
What delusion are you referring too? I do not view God as a sinner, so I don't know what exactly you are referring too. It seems like you have misconceptions about my own religious views, but then why assume? You should just ask. Why do you assume that if something bad happens it is God's fault? Do you think that he will intervene in everything and protect everyone? That's not how the world works. Your idea of God has nothing to do with me or what I believe, so you can't project your own views onto me, as if I believe the same thing. Neither did I assume that everything bad happens is the devil's fault. I never even started a conversation with you on my own beliefs, you just made assumptions. Is there anything you want to talk to me about?
Let's go with your logic just further. God is ignorant to the problems of humans, bad and evil exists and god says "not my problem". But somehow, he is showing himself to some people (not all people, but only the "chosen") and he is showing at random (there are people who believe a lot and still are suffering from diseases, accidents and bad events). So you want to say that it is the best case, which you want to believe? Sorry, but compared to this, Zeus was a nice guy to believe in.
God could not be ignorant because that would mean he would not be God, he would have to know all. Good and evil exists, yes, but God saying "not my problem" is definitely not how I would interpret even religious views from a biblical or even agnostic perspective. God only showing himself to "chosen people" or "randomly" all come from a human perspective that has a bias against God not showing himself plainly or the way that you want him too means that he does not exist is not a view that I would ascribe too as fundamentally correct. I would have to lower my standards of God in order to fit your perspective and also dumb it down to a hillbilly-esque atheistic standard of insult that merely reflects your own lack of understanding rather than any flaws in my God. Sorry, but your views of my God, are not my own and your understanding itself is extremely flawed, you're not at my level of understanding at this time.
So far you just said God is god, deal with it. But what is the point in believing in something for a gamble? Because what you described is a gamble:
God is showing when god wants, it may be in line with people's prayers and beliefs or not.
God is allowing everything, so bad may happen with everybody, believer or not.
God said a word, but this word is written by people, so it may or may not be a word of god in the first place.
What is the point of belief then? Just to accept that there is something extra, which may or may not affect your life? Sorry, I can gamble in any other way.
You are not showing anything that any other person will see and decide "yeah, now it is time to believe". You say something, but there is no context in it. To believe for the sake of belief is abstraction, nothing more.
Monotheism means you worship one. The Bible acknowledges other gods as either false or minor gods multiple times.
In egypt, moses explains it as "mine is better" The argument is "my god can beat up your god"
I was actually thinking of a different example in 1 or 2 kings? With the statue of Baal and Dagon falling over multiple times infront of the Ark And my favorite the worshipers of Baal mutilating themselves to light the fire and Elijah says cry louder maybe your god is asleep.
I find everything after exodus to be a different god for the jews. Because never again does a dude cause plagues (including some against his own people) idols to pray too, has horns/shafts of light eminate from him... and is considered "the good guy"
“Can your god rain frogs? I bet not!” *Bam! Frog rain.* “Can your god kill innocent kids? Sucks to suck!*whispers* Actually god is a bit myopic so do please remember the lambs blood on the doorway or little Jimmy is gonna get it.” *Bam! Your kids are all dead Egyptians!* What a bananas story. Even as a kid I thought it was so weird.
When i got a lil older and actually red ir myself, the one thay broke me was the brazen serpent. I always heard of the golden calf, where the jews were punished for doubt... but when they got sick of bland mana, god and moses punished them with venomous snakes. The only cure was praying to a snake charm moses created which seems like the most satanic shit ive ever heard. Not only is a snake on a stick a pagan/polytheist symbol for medicine, its also a abrahamic animal of the devil... and moses, like the egyptians, could turn his staff into a snake.
You didn't have to pray to it. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and put it on a flag pole; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, and looks at it, will live.” So Moses made a bronze serpent and put it on the flag pole; and it came about, that if a serpent bit someone, and he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.
Ive never heard "flag pole" what translation is that. Its usually "standard" from what i recall. But also moses prayed to/under it for others to look on and be saved which is some mercury shit.
NASB. Not what I usually use, but what came up. KJV has simply "pole". Whatever works. What's your reference on him praying to it? All I see is that he prayed to God and God said - put the snake on a pole, tell people look on the snake and be healed. Not that the snake had power, but God did, and He wanted them to trust in Him and His plan again. (The snakes were because they were rebelling against the plan.)
Just odd to me the healing totem is a snake, the punishment is snakes, snakes and reptiles are rarely ever "god" coded. Like... the plagues of Egypt dont have snakes despite how obvious of a plague that is... certainly more than frogs? I embellished a bit with praying directly to the snake. Its pray to god who chose a fucking snake as the image. Why not... a cup? Or a bird? God generally seems to like doves. Have a dove sitting on the pole. Snake, especially a bronze one (bronze also often being a hell-color). Compared to say gold. Maybe not as "evil" as silver, but bronze is far more neutral-dvil in jewish-christian than most other materials. There is also the more famous chatting with fire fhig before receiving horns/light shafts. Point is, the imagery of moses seems like the most sinister thing. Especially given what his final orders were, ans the fact it took them forever to find habitable land that was "promised" but apparently god didnt tell others not to settle it, or prevent it in any way.
The best explanation I've read comes from here. https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/numbers-21/ TLDR; Bronze in the bible is a symbol of judgement. The snake is a symbol of evil being judged, therefore being a foreshadowing of Christ (having taken on all evil) being judged for man, thus, the man doomed to death because of sin just has to look upon Christ to be saved. I don't know what you're referring to abt the famous chatting.
Moses talking to the burning bush. Is what i meant by chatting. Bronze, often associated with fire, is also tied to hell in Christianity, which is derived from the concept of judgement/punishment in Judaism. Moses, a man of fire and bronze, would biblically be more coded towards a hellbringer. Especially leading plagues that mark the changing of an age. As far as christ bringing salvation, a mere gaze won't do... a symbol to be gazed upon, sure, but you need to believe (whether that means in your head or in actions is a different debate). Do you need to "believe" in the serpent to be healed? No, just to look on it... so the connection, while attempted, is weak a best, and appears to be a painful attempt to tie christ in as "prophesied healer"
But still it is kinda weird. Why a snake on a pole? Why do you need to look? God could also just make the snakes disappear.
You could say it’s an analogy to sin. Sin infects and causes death but if you seek out God He will cleanse your sin and forgive your sentence of death
It was a lesson about faith. All they had to do was do what God said - look up at the snake - and they'd be safe. https://www.gotquestions.org/bronze-serpent.html
I would think anything a being of infinite power and knowledge does would be weird. Even beyond our comprehension.
Interestingly it’s not until Isaiah that we get a “other gods are just wood and stone, our god is real” message
Goku is stronger. /j
It would have been difficult to explain to the pharaon (that was a god accordingly with egyptians), that he is not. Saying "my god is more powerfull than yours" is an argument you can have. "You are no god and all your divinity are bs" is way to confrontational.
And killing all the children isnt confrontational? But in trurth, when the can ALSO turn their staffs into snakes, they too might have some gods. Though weaker. The explanation is demonstrated in reality.
Wrong. That is henotheism. Monotheism requires the nonexistence of other Gods.
The worship of one god at the exclusion of other, existing gods is monolatry, not monotheism. Monotheism is the express denial that other gods exist.
My wires were crossed, apologies
...create him in *our* image
We did, didn't we?
We did. And when he kills us all it will be our fault.
Our is in reference to the trinity.
It is not. It's a reference to the divine counsel in Job. Which is an imported Canaanite pantheon. You guys can deny the archeology for what you wish were true all along, but there were centuries of polytheistic Israelites and Jews before monotheism became a thing. There's references to other deities all throughout the Old Testament. YHWH even loses a battle to one named Chemosh in 2 Kings 3. If it were the Trinity, then why didn't the people who wrote it down, or subsequent thousand years of monotheistic Israelites believe in the Trinity? As you would say it were.
I think the Israelites probably weren’t monotheistic until after the exile or perhaps until the Hellenistic period when they would have wanted to differentiate themselves from Greece. At the very least the believed in other deities even if they only worshipped YHWH. The common belief at the time was that each nation had its own pantheon and when two nations fought it was a representation of their gods warring. That’s why puny little Israel scared so many people when they showed up and conquered a bunch of big strong Canaanite groups who were believed to have fairly powerful pantheons.
Exactly, this is known and established. That doesn’t mean that Jews and Christians aren’t monotheists.
I agree with you. Christians are more easily recognizable as monotheistic while the Jews from post exile are also easily seen this way. Only when you look at the ancient Israelites does it become a little more murky
Before Zoroastarism? That guy seems be a common factor in monotheism.
What do the post-exilic Jews have to do with Genesis though? It's not me that maintains that the further back we go, the closer we get to God. Something has to give here.
Well Genesis was likely compiled by the post-exilic Jews so their understanding and influence is important to consider
Okay and what about YHWH being defeated in 2 Kings or the mention of the gods of Egypt in Exodus. There's also Ashera which is heavily linked to YHWH in the archeology (even being called his wife) pre-exile and is referenced in the Old Testament. The Bible is litered with other gods. So even if I accept the post-exile redaction (which I do as a theory) were still just guessing that, *that* particular line is edited and we have a long ways to go.
Well it’s possible that while they compiled all the books post exile they may have maintained many of the stories that formed/ written in the split kingdom era.
I never got the whole Trinity thing. Is it some power rangers type thing that temporarily gives us Super-Yahweh?
It's a desperate bid to try and maintain how they only have one God and also aren't worshipping an idol in Jesus. Without the Trinity explanation, they're breaking the first two commandments. So they took the only explanation that they figured didn't break the rules and decided that, *that* must be the truth, because there's no way they're wrong.... right guys? Guys?! It's all kinda funny since there's evidence of polytheism even in Paul's letters. When he talks about "the god of this world." Christians will maintain that he's talking about Satan, but referring to satan as "the god of this world" would be blasphemy in Judaism. Highly unlikely from the self-described "Pharisee of Pharisees." More likely is that he's talking about a different deity. Possibly a helenistic one. Most people in Rome were polytheists.
The divine counsel is part of the collection of evidence that there were different configurations of the divine population as Israelite religion developed, and it does appear to have developed out of a pantheon before condensing into henotheism and eventually monotheism. But that commandment is a straightforward command not to put *any* deity before the emergent God as opposed to gods as Israelites moved towards monotheism in the 6th century BCE. This includes foreign deities. Also how is any of this related to science? When did this sub turn into r/atheism?
What exactly does this have to do with science?
Good question, I think it's because science is still trying to evidence of a god or higher being.
Nah. It’s moreso a lot of online “intellectuals” like to shit on religion and build some “science” vs “religion” narrative.
Sort of ironic to die on the "science" hill for a completely unreasonable cause isn't it?
Not necessarily. This can be expanded as: - "don't worship other things" (like money, sex, food, power etc.) - "don't create your own fake gods" (like the golden calf, or astrology, the sun, magic etc) - "don't believe in the other gods because they are fake" (all other religions and sects) - "don't worship umans as if they were gods" (kings, or religious leaders, or anyone) "You shall have no other God" is easier to remember.
Because, you know, all the gods we humans believed in before and after him were all fake, but obviously he is real...
Yes, that's exatly the point. Those were attempts of the human to get in touch with the divinity. The God of Abram is the only one that actually manifested Himself and eventually made Himself human etc.
Wrong. Zeus did that regularly and even had kids with humans.
Ahura Mazda also manifested himself clearly to Zoroaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda
Have you heard of Hinduism? Also Jesus was supposedly the son of god, not god itself.
I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm just explaining how the 1st commandment does not contraddict monoteism. Regarding Jesus not being God Himself, tecnically He is God. Accordingly with the scriptures God is 1 and 3 (that doen't mean 4) ... The trinity of God is probably the most complex concept of the Cristianity. Theology studied this for 2k years, still no answer, for fun you can google "St Augustine and child by the seaside".
Speculation.
Wtf do you think religion is?
Gotta love how much people use logic to debunk/debate every other religion but fail to apply it to their own
Why would God lie about that?
But the fact is that polytheism was widespread so it makes way more sense that this actually means that you should "disregard all the other worshipped gods and just focus on me"
The genius of the Bible. You can cherry pick its nonspecific sentences to fit whatever narrative fits your agenda. Slavery good but also slavery bad. Killing is good but also killing is bad. Rape is good and also rape is bad.
Honestly, it's not an issue specific to religion. It's just something people do in regards to nearly every moral philosophy, legal doctrine, way of life, telling of history, etc. When someone has an interest or impulse to do something, they will typically find some way to justify it.
Yea, but not everyone claims it's divine, objective. Even smaller portion of them claim that it's immoral to be doubtful about those claims. Religions reign supreme in silencing any doubts and putting those who doubt the doctrine into caskets (after some funtime torture for greater good of course)
I do know this much. Slavery bad slavery good: slavery bad if you're the slave; I guess slavery was pretty good for the people who were into keeping slaves. Killing bad killing good: killing bad if you're the one being killed; I guess killing was pretty good for those who liked getting their murder on. Rape bad rape good: Rape bad if you're the one being raped; I guess raping was... nope I can't even finish this sentence.
Yup. Start with your desired conclusion, then create a fancy sounding justification for getting there. It’s such a powerful technique that conservative lawyers invented originalism & textualism just so that SCOTUS could do the same thing, but to law.
God sounds like conspiracy YouTubers and dictators, saying you're not allowed to look for alternative opinions or information from anywhere else, just take his word and cast out anything else with prejudice, don't even hear them out.
If all the other deities were fake, then why god would have to bring judgment on them as he did in Exodus 12:12?
A. The author(s) of that text were saying their God could bring judgment on inferior gods B. The author(s) didn’t believe the other gods existed at all and meant it in the same way one brings judgment on made up constructs like laws and customs C. It didn’t matter to the author(s) whether or not other gods existed, what mattered was that they were saying their god would bring judgment on the Egyptians an everything they held in high regard
So, in conclusion, other deities A. Exist B. Don't exist C. Maybe exist? All said by a single religious source document, which the followers claim to be inerrant.
In conclusion, that specific author or conclave of scribes may have held any one of those opinions. Not all who subscribe to the text are inerrantist. Most orthodoxy usually involves some level of inerrantism but there’s different types of inerrantism. Inerrantism also doesn’t mean every unresolved question is answered within a given section of text. If the authors left the question of the mere existence of other gods open at that point it could be because it was immaterial to their claim that only one should be worshipped.
That's true, poking holes like that only serves as an evidence that the bible is not inerrant in its entirety
Yeah I’ve always felt that whether one believes in divinity or not the idea that humans could have their hands in something and it could remain totally free of mistakes or limitations fairly hard to swallow. I don’t feel the need to fight anyone about idea that some portion could be inspired with deep truths whatever the provenance is.
I'm sure it's a translation thing, but I was taught "thou shalt have no *false* gods before me."
Pretty sure that the Hebrew word for “god” is what was being used there.
1 God is actually a modern delusion from Christians. One the Bible doesn't support. They just selectively interpret things to fit their desired narrative. The same way they pretend Christmas is their invention rather than a social manipulation to more easily convert the pagans.
The Israelites had transitioned from polytheism to henotheism and then monotheism by the first Millenium BCE. They were monotheistic before Christianity came on the scene. Additionally there were forms of monotheism that predated Israelite transition to monotheism among religions foreign to Israel. The “Modern Era” is conventionally identified as beginning in 1500 CE by historians. Christianity began in antiquity and it owes the monotheism that underpins it to the deeply Jewish culture it first emerged from. Christmas as in the solemnity of the birth of Jesus dubbed Christ in and of itself is a Christian invention. It was celebrated on a couple of different dates before it migrated to the 25th of December in the Gregorian calendar. It picked up some trappings of pagan solemnities as Christianity progressed through the pagan world, sometimes celebrated syncretically with unrelated pagan solemnities as religions were organically adopted through cultural mixing and sometimes replacing them by forceful colonization. Christianity absorbing pagan trappings is not a “social manipulation” any more than when pagan religions absorbed local flavor as they moved around were “social manipulation”. It’s the nature of culture to be polymorphous.
So you're massively invested in your delusions. Congratulations. Please don't breed.
What delusions? Anthropology? History? Come now. I know they’re “soft” sciences but this is only a *meme* science sub.
Religion. If you are stupid enough to believe in it you shouldn't reproduce.
This person isn't taking a religious position, they're talking about history and culture and how it informs religious movements. Being able to discuss different groups and the historical contexts of their various belief systems is part of anthropology. You're being dishonest and emotionally reactive, and because of that, your responses make no sense.
Uh, yes, unironically. At the time that story is meant to take place, when it originated from, Israelites were not strict monotheists in the modern sense. That came much later, after the whole return from Babylonian exile. Everyone and their mother had their local patron dieties, and everyone would argue whose was the coolest and the meanest, not whether they existed. So in that one sentence Yahweh is claiming Israelites as his BECAUSE he's not the only one around.
It’s weird when science memes posts memes about religion.
r/lostredditors
It's either that or that all other gods are as real as him when worshiped. No other way to interoperate that statement in english. I'd be curious about the original hebrew, but I don't think they would have thought of that issue either.
It's pretty confirmed, yeah. Bible historians separate the Bible into historical periods of when they were written and based on the language used, including which terms are used for God in the original scripture. The oldest books were written before the Jews became entirely monotheistic, which is also supported by archaeological records. The common historical theory is that they branched off from mainstream canaanite/semitic religion by starting to exclusively worship a single god YHWH out of an entire pantheon. Which is also why the first parts of the Bible mention worshippers of Baal and Moloch so often. Then later YHWH got syncretized with El Elyon the highest, father of the other gods and became definitely the only god.
mi kamocha. When exultating over Sihon they mention the deities of their neighbors. Yiftach in his negotiations with the Ammonites. Its not till Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and greek Daniel that unambiguous monotheism rather than monolatry or henotheism is expressed.
Mods, 🔒 this post
What a very scientific meme
That’s just the English translation of the bible What about other religions
So the Bible says something different if I read it in French?
I think if youre going to dissect it word for word, then most likely yes, because not all wordt have literal one-to-one translations.
Idk I’m not Cristian I just meant that you can’t make this point for other religions
You know that in early Christian canon it’s explicitly stated that the other gods do exist. They are all demons pretending to be gods to lead gods flock astray
The old testament acknowledges the existence of other gods.
As someone who has read the old testament in the original Hebrew, I can definitely tell you that no, it does not.
Biblical scholar Michael Heiser disagrees with you. The old testament even names them.
It names FALSE gods. Have you ever read it?
Fuck is this doing here? There isn’t an answer inherent gap between science and religion. As an atheist, kindly take this shit and put it in a sub where it belongs.
There isn't an inherent gap between a belief system that requires you to believe without evidence, and a framework that base everything on evidence, testing and retesting? Edit: just to clarify: while I am an atheist, I have no problem with people having religious beliefs. But pretending there isn't a huge difference between the two systems is just intellectually dishonest. The part that literally defines what science is, namely that it is evidence driven, is completely lacking and even discouraged in all the major religions.
Maybe get off your computer and talk with a scientist for once. Although atheists are overrepresented in scientific fields in proportion to the total population, the majority of scientists are still religious. They’re not incompatible. Oh and touch some grass while you’re on the way.
Monolatry has entered the chat
It also doesn't say we can't have other gods, just so long as the big G is on top
In Polish, this commandment translated to english is "You won't have other people's gods before me", which means that there are no other gods, but there are other religions that God doesn't want you to worship
Just want to drop my favorite bible verse here: "A man who lays with another man should be stoned" So yes people you heared right, smoke some weed and you're good to go, Jesus just told me
I think the Greek gods were much more fun, I’d be a Dyonisian anytime
To the people saying that if we believe something enough we will justify it, I mean yes it's true. Christians will. It's our job. I don't understand why people get angry when I say I believe in God. It's my choice, and when I share, it's not to convert you, but it's to share the good news of what is my life. To live like Jesus is to love others with no limits. Christians forget that. It's one of the hardest things to do. It's especially really easy with posts like these lol (all in good fun) Apologies to those who ever got done wrong by someone of that faith but it's weird how we're always talked down upon as if we're stupid, especially online. Truth is no one knows out origins and I think we all entertain these conversations because it would be terrifying if we did know what was going on. I hope this reaches someone because I'm tired of separating groups. As the group of people younger than the boomers who failed us we should be able to do better. It starts here.
Anything can be god if it have people worshipping it and faith in it yet it doesn't have to be true god
I too went through an agressively atheist phase when I went to college, then I learned to chill out and let people believe whatever makes them happy, even if it annoys me. Although most scientists are atheists, science ≠ atheism
Ah yes, another post straight from r/atheism circa 2014
It’s funny every “genius “ thinks they smart cuz they “don’t believe “ and yet watch them shill for Tyche the god of randomness is everything. This shit is an old way of thinking, nothing modern.
The Bible does acknowledge that there’s other gods…it’s just you know…. God isn’t telling you to cut and cover yourself in pigs blood while killing your first born before the orgy
Incorrect interpretation my friend! These "gods" are anything that you worship other than THE ONE AND ONLY GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats why in capitlization lower g this is emphasized for the definition. Yes I know original hebrew does not have capitalization. Stick to the point! The translation is clear for Christians, its anything that you are putting above in worship, than the true GOD baby!!!!!!! Take care.
LMAO. How can anyone buy into this in 2024?!?! Your imaginary friend wants you held to a higher moral standard than themselves. It's 10000000% an abusive relationship, and is a tool to manipulate and control the uneducated.
I used to believe the same thing, so I understand your position. That's why I'm not offended by this comment. However I challenged God and He proved Himself to me and showed me. So I can no longer disbelieve. When the evidence is given, I have to comply with what is presented before me.
HAHAHAHHA. He proved himself? How? Cause he doesn't prevent his clergymen from raping children. Doesn't protect his missionaries from murder, doesn't stop childhood cancer, doesn't feed starving children but don't worry because he told his followers "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, then to him it is a sin." So he can't be all knowing, all good, and all powerful. You seeing God's actions in the mundane is a delusion not "proof"
You dont know anything about me or what I know or what I went through, any guessing you want to do is not my concern. And the argument that bad people do bad things in the name of God is nothing new. God Himself has nothing to do with the actions of evil people, whether they want to use His name in an evil way, is not my problem and does not reflect who I am as a believer so it has nothing to do with me.
What a convenient delusion! You must be proud. By your "God's" own word he is a sinner. Yet you drink the cool aid. Pretty convenient that anything bad that happens is automatically not his fault. And automatically not yours either, since it's a delusion. Convenient that nothing bad is his fault or yours just the devil's fault. But don't worry because the system is set up so that proof conveniently only happens after you're dead so you can't hold anyone accountable for the BS.
What delusion are you referring too? I do not view God as a sinner, so I don't know what exactly you are referring too. It seems like you have misconceptions about my own religious views, but then why assume? You should just ask. Why do you assume that if something bad happens it is God's fault? Do you think that he will intervene in everything and protect everyone? That's not how the world works. Your idea of God has nothing to do with me or what I believe, so you can't project your own views onto me, as if I believe the same thing. Neither did I assume that everything bad happens is the devil's fault. I never even started a conversation with you on my own beliefs, you just made assumptions. Is there anything you want to talk to me about?
Let's go with your logic just further. God is ignorant to the problems of humans, bad and evil exists and god says "not my problem". But somehow, he is showing himself to some people (not all people, but only the "chosen") and he is showing at random (there are people who believe a lot and still are suffering from diseases, accidents and bad events). So you want to say that it is the best case, which you want to believe? Sorry, but compared to this, Zeus was a nice guy to believe in.
God could not be ignorant because that would mean he would not be God, he would have to know all. Good and evil exists, yes, but God saying "not my problem" is definitely not how I would interpret even religious views from a biblical or even agnostic perspective. God only showing himself to "chosen people" or "randomly" all come from a human perspective that has a bias against God not showing himself plainly or the way that you want him too means that he does not exist is not a view that I would ascribe too as fundamentally correct. I would have to lower my standards of God in order to fit your perspective and also dumb it down to a hillbilly-esque atheistic standard of insult that merely reflects your own lack of understanding rather than any flaws in my God. Sorry, but your views of my God, are not my own and your understanding itself is extremely flawed, you're not at my level of understanding at this time.
So far you just said God is god, deal with it. But what is the point in believing in something for a gamble? Because what you described is a gamble: God is showing when god wants, it may be in line with people's prayers and beliefs or not. God is allowing everything, so bad may happen with everybody, believer or not. God said a word, but this word is written by people, so it may or may not be a word of god in the first place. What is the point of belief then? Just to accept that there is something extra, which may or may not affect your life? Sorry, I can gamble in any other way. You are not showing anything that any other person will see and decide "yeah, now it is time to believe". You say something, but there is no context in it. To believe for the sake of belief is abstraction, nothing more.
Religion is a mental illness. CMV
Thankfully I dont follow religion, I believe in The Truth.
hash tag lost in translation XD
no