# christianity is not monotheistic.



## jarrod

this isn't intended as a dig at christians as a whole, but it is just something i've noticed about CERTAIN christians.  i'm not even sure it applies to denominations.  it's just an observation i've made based on individual talks with various believers

often it seems that when something a believer approves of happens, god is credited.  but when something disapproved of happens, satan is blamed.  there is seldom an established criterea for determining if an action was that of god or satan, & it's worth noting that this is a distinctly different roll for satan than is played by him throughout the first testament.  in early parts of the bible, satan is simply "the adversary", a being sent to tempt us & test our faith in god, but not personally interested in inspiring us to do evil.  (see "the origin of satan" by elaine pagels if you are interested).  

so since he is now set up as the opposite or at least enemy of god, doesn't that make him "a" god?  many polytheistic religions have or have had deities that were malicious, but they were still gods in their own right.

satan has his own realm, his own supernatural followers (demons), & according to many in popular thought, at least some ability to operate outside of the wishes of god, a supposedly omnipotent being.  i think this classifies him as a god, & therefore christianity as a polytheistic religion, even if the "dark god" is not to be worshipped or revered.

i want to state one more time that this post is in no way a judgement on christianity.  it's just an observation on my part.  

EDIT: also wanted to add that the ten commandments don't state that there is only one god.  only that believers are not to worship another god besides the god of isreal.

jf


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Well, you can call it a trinary faith "father, son, holy spirit", or a bi-pantheon "god/devil".


----------



## jarrod

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, you can call it a trinary faith "father, son, holy spirit", or a bi-pantheon "god/devil".


 
that is a really, really good point that i hadn't thought of.  let's take hinduism for example: sure there is vishnu, shiva, & brahma, but they are often spoken of as different aspects or manifestations of the same entity.  now a shiva devotee might think vishnu is an avatar of shiva while a vishnu devotee might think the opposite, but they agree that they revere the same deity.  yet hinduism is commonly accepted as a polytheistic religion.  

jf


----------



## Big Don

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, you can call it a trinary faith "father, son, holy spirit", or a bi-pantheon "god/devil".


How many legs has a dog if you call the tail a leg?
FOUR! Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.


----------



## jarrod

Big Don said:


> How many legs has a dog if you call the tail a leg?
> FOUR! Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.


 
my point exactly!  you can't say satan isn't a god just because.

jf


----------



## Big Don

jarrod said:


> my point exactly!  you can't say satan isn't a god just because.
> 
> jf


Just because thousands of years of scholarship and scripture says he isn't?
By your (let's be kind and call it) "thinking" Judaism and Islam are the same because the god of Ishmael and the god of Issac are the same.
I'd encourage you to try that one out at the nearest mosque and see what kind of reaction you get.


----------



## Big Don

One of the things St Patrick is famous for is using the shamrock's three bladed leaf to explain that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in fact, one and the same. Not THREE, ONE.


----------



## jarrod

oh i'm sorry i must have misunderstood your "reasoning".  

where in the bible does it directly state that satan is not a god?  i'm not saying it doesn't, but i can't think of a spot off of the top of my head.  

also i'm not really sure where you're going with your judaism/islam "point".  they are clearly different religions though they do worship the same god.  

i'm happy to discuss this with you, but please try to answer the points i raised in my OP.  i.e., why is satan accorded so much power if he's not a deity.  

jf


----------



## jarrod

yes, i remember st pat's shamrock analogy.  however there are other religions classified as polythiestic which explain each individual deity as one aspect of the same god.  so should we dispense with the classifications of monotheistic/polytheistic all together?  maybe we should.

jf


----------



## Sukerkin

Dipping way back into my past memories of religious indoctrination, isn't it the case that Satan is just as much a Son of God as Jesus i.e. one of the angels created by God to enforce and enact his will?  

That begs the additional question of "enforce against who?" but the pertinent point here is that the higher echelons of angels, of whom Satan was one of the highest, were powerful spiritual beings.  Satan was guilty of beginning to think that he was indeed an equal for God and brought about a civil war in heaven.

His great crime was that he and his followers, comprising about a third of the angels, lost the battle and he was cast out from heaven and bound to the vicinty of the earth.

The reason for this was that he was to be allowed to try and tempt human kind away from worship of the Almighty and then, when he failed, God would destroy him and all the 'evil' humans who did not believe.

I have many issues with this, to me, pseudo-logical mythology but again these are not applicable to the question of whether Satan is divine or not.  The short answer is, yes he is.  The longer answer is, no, not really.  He has many of the powers associated with divinity but these were not only granted by God but have since been limited by him too.

The core query that lingers in the background with regard to Christianity is whether it is monotheistic or not.  The answer to that is equally equivocal.  

It is treated as if it is monotheistic now but it is a religion rooted in the polytheistic Babylonian faiths and has absorbed into itself many of the extant pagan beliefs and rituals of Western Europe.


----------



## Big Don

What you are missing, intentionally, imo, is that in monotheistic religions there is ONE god, that is the FOCUS of worship, other entities are not gods. 
Please, go tell it at a mosque, but, wear your running shoes. Tell Islamic people that Satan is as much of a god as Allah and see how that goes over. Or, are you only comfortable deriding Christian beliefs? I mean, if you truly believe that Christianity is not monotheistic, because of the existence of Satan, then Islam cannot be either, as they also have Satan. Go forth and speak your piece to them, see how they answer you.


----------



## jarrod

thank you sukerkin, i appreciate your addressing the discussion at hand.  

i've been reading up on some comparative mythology lately & it seems as if almost all religious systems have a deity which is in opposition to the supreme or benevolent deity.  most all follow the model of primordial chaos-creation-duality-destruction & return to primordial chaos.  it seems that christianity is no exception, but for other reasons has not afforded the opposition entity the status of deity.

jf


----------



## jarrod

Big Don said:


> What you are missing, intentionally, imo, is that in monotheistic religions there is ONE god, that is the FOCUS of worship, other entities are not gods.
> Please, go tell it at a mosque, but, wear your running shoes


 
don, i stated twice in my OP that i meant no offense to christianity but wanted to discuss some ideas that had been running through my head lately.  if this discussion gets your hackles up, feel free to withdraw your participation, no hard feelings.  if you would like to stay & play though, please bring up the actual points i made rather than shooting down straw men that have nothing to little to do with what i'm saying.

all the best,

jf


----------



## Big Don

jarrod said:


> don, i stated twice in my OP that i meant no offense to christianity but wanted to discuss some ideas that had been running through my head lately.  if this discussion gets your hackles up, feel free to withdraw your participation, no hard feelings.  if you would like to stay & play though, please bring up the actual points i made rather than shooting down straw men that have nothing to little to do with what i'm saying.
> 
> all the best,
> 
> jf


No straw men, I just suggest that, since you believe this, you should share it with the mosque nearest your home, and see what they think about it. 
The definition of monotheistic is belief in one god, you are calling Christianity polytheistic by a reasoning that is specious at best. One god means just that ONE. Where in any scripture is Satan referred to as a god? There are, in the bible, a number of mentions of Baal, who some worshiped as a god, what there is no mention of is Satan being a god.
Your whole argument is based on the idea that Satan is the opposition, ergo, he is a god. That is foolish at best.


----------



## Sukerkin

I don't think it helps to examine the issue simply to say that other religious groups are just as aggressive in rejecting proper discussion of 'doctrine' as the worst of fundamentalist Christians.

Of course, where we have trouble discussing anything that springs forth from the Bible is that it is it's own source of reference and there is a tendency amongst the faithfull to reject out of hand anything that is not explicitly stated in it's pages (in one mis-transaltion or another).  Even the increasing evidence that it is far from "the unerring word of God" doesn't prevent this.

From my own life, I have been arguing theology with my father for more than thirty years now and we always reach such an impasse.  

His logical constructs do fit together and make a good deal of sense if you accept the starting premise that there is an invisible, omnipotent being, who arose from nothing and created everything else out some need to not be alone and to be worshipped.  

As is clear, I do not accept such an idea as having any roots in the reality that we have observed to date - thus, we can never agree as he thinks I'm just stubborn whereas I think he's abrogated his innate responsibility to reason :lol:.

My point with this is that, if even a father and son who have a strong and friendly relationship cannot get past the sticking point of absolute faith in a book claimed to have been inspired by a being of unproven existence, what chance do we have of making any progress on the Interwebs where people are invariably driven to be far less reasoned in their responses?


----------



## Carol

Differenct cultures shape the same spiritual path.

Zoroastrianism was the world's first monotheistic religion, the acceptance of Christianity by Zoroastrians was proved crucial to Christianity's survival. The earliest use of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus Christ stems from the early Christian interaction with the Zoroastrians, who believed in one God, Ahura Mazada (translation: Wise Lord), whose birthday was celebrated on December 25th.   The Zoroastrrians also believed a beast by the name of Angra Manyu (translation: hostile spirit).  The influence in our culture still shows today with the word "angry". The Zoroastrians recognized him as the personfication of evil, but not an actual god.

The Zoroastrian influences resulted in the Christian notions of heaven, hell, and Satan, and also why the Christian view of an afterlife is different from the Jewish version of an afterlife...even though Christianity is an immediate descendant of Judaism. 

The various influences continued as Christianity spread west. In the English and the German speaking world, the Christian high holiday, Easter, is named after reproductive cycles (estrus) or more specifically, a pagan goddess of fertility (Oestra). The Spanish gave the holiday a more descriptive name: Resurrection Day (Dia de la Resurreccion). 

There are a few places around the web that are a bit (ahem) critical of Christianity that use information like this to prove that Christianity is not what it claims to be. While I don't identify myself as a Christian, I don't share this criticism.  When one looks at the Zoroastran and pagan influences on Christian festivals, they are not only seeing Christianity itself but also the path it took to get where it is today.


----------



## jarrod

Big Don said:


> No straw men, I just suggest that, since you believe this, you should share it with the mosque nearest your home, and see what they think about it.


 
no where did i state that i thought judaism, christianity, & islam were the same religion.  this is an example of a straw man.  if you want to debate whether or not they worship the same god, feel free to start another thread.



Big Don said:


> The definition of monotheistic is belief in one god, you are calling Christianity polytheistic by a reasoning that is specious at best. One god means just that ONE. Where in any scripture is Satan referred to as a god? There are, in the bible, a number of mentions of Baal, who some worshiped as a god, what there is no mention of is Satan being a god.


 
as i said in my OP, which i am getting really tired of repeating to you, these thoughts were based largely on discussion with INDIVIDUAL christians.  what individuals believe is not always based on the authority of their sacred texts.

so for one final review, we are addressing questions such as:

why is satan not regarded as a deity when other religions have non-worshipped, evil gods?  at what point is an entity considered a god & not another form of supernatural being?

why is the christian 3-in-1 god considered truly 1 while gods such as the hindu shiva-vishnu-brahma considered 3, thereby making that religion polytheistic?

are the classifications of mono/polytheistic accurate?  are they useful?



Big Don said:


> Your whole argument is based on the idea that Satan is the opposition, ergo, he is a god. That is foolish at best.


 
i believe this is the second time you've insulted me in this thread.  it not only shows that you don't understand what we're talking about, it also demonstrates a weak character.

jf


----------



## Tez3

Not being a Christian I've always wondered about the worship of the Virgin Mary and how she's seen as as well as the Christian saints. people pray to her and the saints, are they seen as gods ( perhaps with a small g) or why else pray to them? the worship of the Virgin mary confuses me somewhat because it's often accompanied by a lack of respect in general for women ie women priests/vicars been banned, women full of sin etc

I'm not sure about Satan tbh, I don't honestly think he/it exists. I suppose though you have to have opposites. My idea of hell though would be the same as the Norsemen...a frozen waste, I hate the cold with a passion, a hot hell would be fantastic! 

I think btw the OP is a good one,I don't think however Jarrod is stating his beliefs as such, he's questioning beliefs and asking questions, to my mind a good thing. I can explain my beliefs and not be insulted or feel the need to result to insults just because they aren't shared or understood by others.

Personally I like learning things! Which I have already by reading this thread!


----------



## jarrod

Carol Kaur said:


> Differenct cultures shape the same spiritual path.
> 
> Zoroastrianism was the world's first monotheistic religion, the acceptance of Christianity by Zoroastrians was proved crucial to Christianity's survival. The earliest use of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus Christ stems from the early Christian interaction with the Zoroastrians, who believed in one God, Ahura Mazada (translation: Wise Lord), whose birthday was celebrated on December 25th. The Zoroastrrians also believed a beast by the name of Angra Manyu (translation: hostile spirit). The influence in our culture still shows today with the word "angry". The Zoroastrians recognized him as the personfication of evil, but not an actual god.
> 
> The Zoroastrian influences resulted in the Christian notions of heaven, hell, and Satan, and also why the Christian view of an afterlife is different from the Jewish version of an afterlife...even though Christianity is an immediate descendant of Judaism.
> 
> The various influences continued as Christianity spread west. In the English and the German speaking world, the Christian high holiday, Easter, is named after reproductive cycles (estrus) or more specifically, a pagan goddess of fertility (Oestra). The Spanish gave the holiday a more descriptive name: Resurrection Day (Dia de la Resurreccion).
> 
> There are a few places around the web that are a bit (ahem) critical of Christianity that use information like this to prove that Christianity is not what it claims to be. While I don't identify myself as a Christian, I don't share this criticism. When one looks at the Zoroastran and pagan influences on Christian festivals, they are not only seeing Christianity itself but also the path it took to get where it is today.


 
my knowledge of zoroastrianism is a little rusty, but didn't they hold that the forces of light & dark were equal? i was thinking that their concept of duality influenced later manicheaen thought, but i may be off.

jf


----------



## elder999

At its roots, Jarod, Christianity isn't _necessarily_monotheistic, or quite as monotheistic as some would like to believe. Good boy. :asian:

Let's start with Satan, or, _Shaitan_, Hebrew for "adversary." He was supposed to have been an angel-"much loved by God." The glorious and shining one, Lucifer-the "light bringer." He was an angel-and angels, the theologists tell us, glorious as they are, lack the gift that we've been given: free will. In the end, they're nothing more than God's little wind up attack dogs and boom boxes-sing for him when they're not out doing _his_ will. At least, that's the way those ancient theologists _Imagined_ it to be, more or less, and what they imagined became doctrine. 

And yet, somehow, without being endowed by the omiscient and all knowing Creator with free will, this "adversary" set himself up in opposition to God, rebelled against him, convinced some of his brother angels to go along with it and was cast out-to become the adversary.So, we have a being that lacks free will _exhibiting_ free will it was not endowed with , and opposing the Creator-either the Creator isn't omniscient or he's somehow in on it-in either case, the "adversary," as the name implies, while not necessarily believed to be the equal to "God," is, apparently has, in some ways, a greater power than God does in regards to man in that he can directly influence our "free will." Thus, the argument-_one that has taken place for thousands of years and is only resolved by the individual,_ whether that individual is an outsider, believer, quasi-believer, scholar, non-believer or atheist. In the end, you wind up believing what you choose, whether by logic, faith or study. No point in arguing it.

The Trinity is a touchier subject, especially when discussing it with believers, who have myriad convoluted explanations for something that can easily defy understanding. In any case, *Don*, if Jerrod _were_ to go to the nearest mosque and say that the Trinity is not monotheistic, _the imam might just agree with him,_ and, since he's arguing that "Christianity is not monotheistic," not that there's no such thing as monotheism, he'd be on pretty solid ground with Muslims, theologically speaking.

In any case, _some_ "Christians" (since the term is open to definition) are _tritheistic,_ in that they believe in three gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Most believe that god has a pluralistic nature: one god, three faces-in addition to believing that Jesus has two natures: human and divine. These things were argued about, pretty extensively, back in 325 at the Council of Nicea. Prior to that, there was no one Christian thought on the Trinity-there were arguments about the nature of God -as there had _always_ been; I'm going to avoid Jewish monotheism because it's equally complicated and convoluted, and you've singled out "Christianity." There were arguments about the nature of the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, there were arguments about the nature of Jesus-was he man, divine, separate from the God the Father, of the same substance, or merely of "similar substance"? In the end, the _early church fathers *decided* that Jesus was of the same substance as God the father_.[/B]

I'm going to repeat that: early church fathers *decided* that Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father.

In fact, they took a vote. :lfao:

Of course, many maintain that they were "moved by the Holy Spirit" to do so, but the distinction is only necessary for "believers" *not* _thinkers_. (Not saying the two are mutually exclusive, just that one can certainly influence and bias the other-free will, and all that :lol IN fact, thining has led to a variety of Christian sects that don't believe in a Trinity at all, as well as a few that view the Trinity not as "one," or "a unity" or any of the other convolutions that mainstream Christian Orthodoxy (Catholic and Orthodox churches, as well as _most_ Evangelicals and Protestants) go through to get to "monotheism," but as three separate beings. Though, technically, for most the Holy Spirit isn't really a "person," but a manifestation of God's power.

THen of course, there's the whole Catholic practice of sainthood, whereby some exceptional people have been somehow elevated to not quite godhood, but a sort of demi-godhood. They can, through God's grace, be prayed to and answer prayers, but they're not "gods." Though,historically, if you look at some of the more mythological of those saints-St. George who slew the dragon, for example-you'll find the ancient local favorite deity of the local tribe that was converted to Christianity, all those years ago. Old God absorbed and made a saint, so the people could continue to pray to him. Often, throughout Europe, one will find that beneath a church, one that's been there for hundreds or even more than a thousand years, one will find the holy site of a God whose worship predated Christianity in the area, and beneath its altar another for that other God.

THen there's the whole practice of praying to the Virgin Mary. Let's not go there-I've got to make breakfast, and feed the animals, and this is long enough as it is.:lfao:

To sum up though, while many will argue against your reasons for stating that "Christianity isn't monotheistic," they've got lots of arguments because those very discussions have been taking place since, well, the beginning of "Christianity." I'd say that it depends, upon what CHristians one is talking about, and how they define it-Catholics polytheistic? WHether they like it or not, almost certainly. Belief in the Trinity tritheistic? Could be, though it's been my experience that _most_ Christians just accept St. Patrick's "shamrock," and don't think about it too much. St. Patrick, btw, while a real person, has many stories about him that are a conflation of Christianity with Irish myth and pagan religion, Don, since that's pretty much what he did as an outreach to pagan Celts: he combined elements of their worship with Christianity. He used bonfires on Easter, because the pagans used fire to celebrate, and he combined the sun with the cross to form the Celtic cross, so that they would see something else they had already worshipped, and be comfortable. THe shamrock is notable because what was called the Arian heresy, named after the church father at the council of Nicea who put forth the idea, was still popular in some parts of Europe-the Arian heresy? It was the belief that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were not of the same substance, but separate.......:lfao:


In short,"Christianity" is pretty much what people want it to be. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no absolute truth in this regard, _short of what people choose to believe._


----------



## Big Don

jarrod said:


> as i said in my OP, which i am getting really tired of repeating to you, these thoughts were based largely on discussion with INDIVIDUAL christians.  what individuals believe is not always based on the authority of their sacred texts.


 I have yet to meet any Christian individuals who espouse this belief that Satan is a god. 





> why is satan not regarded as a deity when other religions have non-worshipped, evil gods?


 Because, as stated scripture never ever at any point, in any way, shape, or form calls him a god.





> at what point is an entity considered a god & not another form of supernatural being?
> 
> why is the christian 3-in-1 god considered truly 1 while gods such as the hindu shiva-vishnu-brahma considered 3, thereby making that religion polytheistic?


 Because, in the New Testament (scripture) that is what is said. I would guess, in Hindu theology, there is a different statement or two.





> are the classifications of mono/polytheistic accurate?  are they useful?


 not when you intentionally misinterpret them





> i believe this is the second time you've insulted me in this thread.  it not only shows that you don't understand what we're talking about, it also demonstrates a weak character.
> 
> jf


Calling your opinion foolish, is just that. It isn't calling you foolish. Had I wanted to call you a fool, I would have.


----------



## jks9199

If I follow Jarrod's point properly, he's not suggesting that the TEACHINGS of Christianity support the idea that Satan is equal with God -- but that some people accord him equality in practice when they attribute bad events to him just as they attribute good to God.  Interesting idea... and worth examining in your own life, if you happen to be Christian.



Tez3 said:


> Not being a Christian I've always wondered about the worship of the Virgin Mary and how she's seen as as well as the Christian saints. people pray to her and the saints, are they seen as gods ( perhaps with a small g) or why else pray to them? the worship of the Virgin mary confuses me somewhat because it's often accompanied by a lack of respect in general for women ie women priests/vicars been banned, women full of sin etc
> 
> I'm not sure about Satan tbh, I don't honestly think he/it exists. I suppose though you have to have opposites. My idea of hell though would be the same as the Norsemen...a frozen waste, I hate the cold with a passion, a hot hell would be fantastic!
> 
> I think btw the OP is a good one,I don't think however Jarrod is stating his beliefs as such, he's questioning beliefs and asking questions, to my mind a good thing. I can explain my beliefs and not be insulted or feel the need to result to insults just because they aren't shared or understood by others.
> 
> Personally I like learning things! Which I have already by reading this thread!



In Catholicism, we revere and adore the Virgin Mary and the saints for their holy lives.  We don't worship them -- though the distinction can seem minor.  When we pray to Mary or a saint, we ask their intercession, not for them to cause something directly.  One way I've explained it before is to compare it with asking someone for a favor.  Let's say you want concert tickets, and you happen to know someone who knows the band.  You might ask your buddy to ask the band for tickets, right?  Your buddy isn't really getting you the tickets, and you could go directly to the band -- but the chances that you'll get your tickets goes up if your buddy who's their friend asks on your behalf, right?  Well, scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ never refused his mother (note the wedding at Canaa, for example), so if we want something, we might ask Mary to intercede on our behalf.


----------



## Big Don

jks9199 said:


> In Catholicism, we revere and adore the Virgin Mary and the saints for their holy lives.  We don't worship them -- though the distinction can seem minor.  When we pray to Mary or a saint, we ask their intercession, not for them to cause something directly.  One way I've explained it before is to compare it with asking someone for a favor.  Let's say you want concert tickets, and you happen to know someone who knows the band.  You might ask your buddy to ask the band for tickets, right?  Your buddy isn't really getting you the tickets, and you could go directly to the band -- but the chances that you'll get your tickets goes up if your buddy who's their friend asks on your behalf, right?  Well, scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ never refused his mother (note the wedding at Canaa, for example), so if we want something, we might ask Mary to intercede on our behalf.


That is the best explanation of that I've ever seen.


----------



## GBlues

jarrod said:


> this isn't intended as a dig at christians as a whole, but it is just something i've noticed about CERTAIN christians. i'm not even sure it applies to denominations. it's just an observation i've made based on individual talks with various believers
> 
> often it seems that when something a believer approves of happens, god is credited. but when something disapproved of happens, satan is blamed. there is seldom an established criterea for determining if an action was that of god or satan, & it's worth noting that this is a distinctly different roll for satan than is played by him throughout the first testament. in early parts of the bible, satan is simply "the adversary", a being sent to tempt us & test our faith in god, but not personally interested in inspiring us to do evil. (see "the origin of satan" by elaine pagels if you are interested).
> 
> so since he is now set up as the opposite or at least enemy of god, doesn't that make him "a" god? many polytheistic religions have or have had deities that were malicious, but they were still gods in their own right.
> 
> satan has his own realm, his own supernatural followers (demons), & according to many in popular thought, at least some ability to operate outside of the wishes of god, a supposedly omnipotent being. i think this classifies him as a god, & therefore christianity as a polytheistic religion, even if the "dark god" is not to be worshipped or revered.
> 
> i want to state one more time that this post is in no way a judgement on christianity. it's just an observation on my part.
> 
> EDIT: also wanted to add that the ten commandments don't state that there is only one god. only that believers are not to worship another god besides the god of isreal.
> 
> jf


 
Where to begin....LOL! Those are all good points, and many that I've read on here also are very good comments thank you all. This has been a very interesting thread. Let me try to explain, and attempt to answer your question. Been awhile since I've been to church.

Ok, Satan is a god. But not the way that your thinking. And let me try to explain so you'll have to follow closely. You may or may not have read the story of noah. But basically the world was evil during that time. Now here is the thing, what starts the flood of noah, is the Nephilim. Now the Nephilim are the offspring, of the sons of god, (ie. the angels), and human women. Now the bible does specifically state that these were the the men of old, in other words these nephilim were our hercules, Odysseyes, etc... there fathers later would be known as Zeus, and other such gods. Satan was one of those angels that would have done such a thing. Probably was known and or treated like a god. However, and this is the key, no creation can ever be equal to, or more powerful than it's creator. If you created a coffe cup, it is never going to be a human, in no sense ever, can not physically happen. The same with Satan, and the demons, it is not so much anymore in my belief that they want to be gods any longer, as it is they want revenge. When god created the flood and killed the Nephilim he killed there children, period. If you don't think that, that isn't going to piss somebody off, I don't know what will. There whole goal, is to try and kill us, because we are the creation of god, and that is their revenge. They hate us, because god saved one family, and it was a human family. Yes, Satan wants to be worshipped like a god, but only because he is evil, and has nothing but evil in his heart. YOu know that the bible states that the devil and the demons have been cut off from all enlightenment. They can not learn anything new. THey are very powerful compared to humans, but even humans have physically battled with angelic beings and held there own. They did not win, but they did give them a run for there money.

It is also a false belief that they are to be considered gods or lesser dieties. The same is true of Jesus, many religions believe that he is god. However, nowhere in the bible did he call himself such, as a matter of fact whenever asked Jesus often said, " I am god's son". The belief in Jesus and god being one in the same, comes from a passage where Jesus says, " I and the Father are one. If you have seen me then you have seen the father." Now this passage gets misconstrued as Jesus saying that he is god. This is not a true representation, when considered with the rest of Jesus's lifetime that he referred to being the son. Furthermore, it is said that, "God loved the earth so much that he gave his only begotten son." Now consider this, when people would bow down at Jesus' feet and try to worship him, he would tell them, " Stand up, do not do that, for there is only one who is deserving of your worship, and that is your heavenly father."  Jesus when he said, " I and the father are one", was not saying that he and god are the same. No rather he was referring to himself being a direct representation of his father. You meet a man, and learn that he is a good man, an honest man. Your first thoughts most generally are wow, he must have had good parents. They raised him right. So when you meet this man, you are seeing a direct representation of his parents. So the same is true with Jesus, you are seeing his only parent, because he only has one, GOD. So yeah, in thinking, morals, ethics, beliefs, Jesus and God are one, but they are not the same peson. To take this one step further, the bible does say that god only has one son, Jesus. So even Satan is not a god, or even a lesser diety. He was at one time one of god's most faithful servants. Basically a worker. Let's say upper middle class. 

So now I want to discuss the trinity. The father, the son and the holy ghost. In many bibles it does not refer to the the holy ghost as such, but as gods active force. Interesting. If jesus is one but seperate, because he is a direct reflection of god, then what is the holy ghost? Is it one? I would say yes. I believe personally that the holy ghost is god's chi, his inner strength, it's what he uses and that allows him to do what he does. Without it he would be powerless. 

Now, the idea of hell, for another poster. THe history channel did another documentary on this and it was very well, done. THe catholic church in the middle ages began to lose alot of perisheners. So they therefore needed away to get them back, and so created hell. THis is historical fact, as found by the history channel. Had nothing to do with the bible at all whatsoever, as a matter of fact, nowhere in the bible does it say, you will go to hell if your bad. Simple.

ANd to finish this off, the only powers that Satan has, are the ones that god allows him to have. THe only authority that he has, are the ones that god allows him to have. HE has no power without god, to worship such a being would be like trying to worship a rock, or statue or anything that is considered lifeless. I hope that I answered your question or gave you some food for thought. Very interesting thread, and have enjoyed reading and writing in it.:asian:


----------



## GBlues

jks9199 said:


> If I follow Jarrod's point properly, he's not suggesting that the TEACHINGS of Christianity support the idea that Satan is equal with God -- but that some people accord him equality in practice when they attribute bad events to him just as they attribute good to God. Interesting idea... and worth examining in your own life, if you happen to be Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> In Catholicism, we revere and adore the Virgin Mary and the saints for their holy lives. We don't worship them -- though the distinction can seem minor. When we pray to Mary or a saint, we ask their intercession, not for them to cause something directly. One way I've explained it before is to compare it with asking someone for a favor. Let's say you want concert tickets, and you happen to know someone who knows the band. You might ask your buddy to ask the band for tickets, right? Your buddy isn't really getting you the tickets, and you could go directly to the band -- but the chances that you'll get your tickets goes up if your buddy who's their friend asks on your behalf, right? Well, scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ never refused his mother (note the wedding at Canaa, for example), so if we want something, we might ask Mary to intercede on our behalf.


 
Then why does the bible even state that you may only pray to one god. And Jesus stated that," No one may go to the father except through me." If your prayer is to be heard, should you not pray in Jesus name, as opposed to a dead womans? Some one who does not have the authority to go to god for you. She scripturally, can not intercede. She is worshipped like a god in catholicism, as is Jesus. So therefore, how can she or any other saint do anything for you, other than pull away from god. Because in essence you are praying to a god. What you view as a god. To pray to something is to worship it. When you pray to god, you go through his son first, and it is explicitly stated that, that is the only way to get your prayers heard. Just my opinion. :asian:


----------



## elder999

GBlues said:


> Then why does the bible even state that you may only pray to one god. And Jesus stated that," No one may go to the father except through me." If your prayer is to be heard, should you not pray in Jesus name, as opposed to a dead womans? Some one who does not have the authority to go to god for you. She scripturally, can not intercede. She is worshipped like a god in catholicism, as is Jesus. So therefore, how can she or any other saint do anything for you, other than pull away from god. Because in essence you are praying to a god. What you view as a god. To pray to something is to worship it. When you pray to god, you go through his son first, and it is explicitly stated that, that is the only way to get your prayers heard. Just my opinion. :asian:


 
And yet, when Jesus was asked, _Teach us to pray_, he said, "*Our Father*, which art in heaven, hallowed be *your name.Your* kingdom come.*Your* will be done," not "Me, who is here, hallowed be _my_ name, _my_ kingdom...etc."  It's altogether likely, examining the source documents, that what Jesus meant by saying "No one may go to the father except through me," is that one had to follow his teachings, not pray to him or worship him.

The Virgin Mary thing gets interesting, in that around the world she has taken the place of the local mother deity. The best example of this is the Virgin of Guadalupe, which was in fact a sort of spiritual con on the part of the local Indians who had been forcibly converted to Catholicism/Christianity by the Spanish. A close examination of the story of the VIrgin of Guadelupe and the accompanying symbolism reveals a thin disguise for the Aztec godess _Tonantzin_. The bishop of Mexico City at the time of the "miracle" of the Virgin of Guadalupe wrote to the Vatican with no small amount of concern about this godess worship, but the Vatican's attitude was pretty much, "Hey, they're praying to the Holy Mother, it's all good....." :lfao:


----------



## exile

Great, productive discussion, folks! 

Please let's continue it as it's been going for the last little while, with good back-and-forth and no snipes or insinuations aimed at other participants. Clearly it's a very complex, mulitfaceted story, with lots of scope for civil debate and disagreement....


----------



## MA-Caver

It is difficult to maintain and prolong a theological discussion these days because people hate having their trees shaken while they're in them. Having a nice comfortable nest up there in their beautiful tree (beliefs) and someone down below (ideologically speaking) shaking it threatening to make them fall out. 
Jarrod and Don you guys have done well thus far but I feel you're pushing the envelope in maintaining civility in this discussion. Please remember nobody right and nobody is wrong when it comes to theology. It's just beliefs and ideas, opinions and theories. A more careful choice of wording is needed and if someone's opinion, idea, beliefs are shaking your tree ... wait for the vibrations to stop before replying and state your counter argument-- err discussion... Our trees are going to be shaken no matter what whenever our beliefs, ideas, opinions are challenged...whether they be in politics, religion, martial arts or who was the greatest rock and roll band of all time, but how we react to them is still our choice. :asian: 


My own take on the discussion.

Christianity is monotheistic. There is one God but three separate beings acting as one or acting towards one purpose. Satan is NOT a god because he cannot create. Christ is NOT a god for the same reason and neither is the Holy Spirit/Ghost. The Father IS a God because he can create, he is the head, CEO the author and finisher of it all... far as Christianity is concerned anyway  
What Sukerkin and Elder stated about Satan's origins I also hold true. However Elder... there was a line in the movie City of Angels where one (former) angel was speaking to one who was struggling with becoming mortal because he was in love with mortal, "....don't you think He gave us (angels) the same gift that he gave them (humans)? ... Free will brother, free will."  
Angels in heaven, nirvana or wherever you want to call it still have their free will to exercise. Ironically they choose to obey the will of God/The Father. Satan/Lucifer had this same free will and chose to exercise it in contradiction to everyone else and managed to influence (which is his MO) the third that followed him. A great war ensued, the third were defeated and cast out and stripped of all their former glory. 
This was pre Genesis ... Now God/The Father looks at all who remains and wonders if it will happen again. Ok, create an place where they can be tested (our known universe being earth and all things celestial), creates man and the remaining 2/3rds take their turns assuming human forms/bodies and living out their lives until death and the souls with the knowledge and experience are returned to be judged worthy enough to remain with the Father or to be cast out with Satan and his original band of cronies. 
Satan of course is going to try and get as many as he can to keep rebelling against God/The Father so he'll influence people to do what we call evil. 
(ok ranting)...

The way I've seen it is that there are three entities working together as one. Dunno about other faiths/religions and their status. Muslim is definitely monotheistic ... but I would entertain the idea that the judism God and Allah are probably one and the same since both claim Abraham (Issac's father) being one of their own. 

I did have the pleasure once of being blessed by one of the Hindu Gods/Goddesses. At Zion's National Park Utah where a group were worshipping an elderly woman who they (told me) said was their Goddess (I regretfully forget the name) and she had come to America to bless the faithful. A gentleman asked me if I would like to be blessed by the Goddess... :idunno: I figured why not, it wasn't as if I were worshipping her just being polite... 
A very unique and spiritual experience... since she spoke to me in Hindi yet I understood every word... and I never studied the language.


----------



## punisher73

jarrod said:


> oh i'm sorry i must have misunderstood your "reasoning".
> 
> where in the bible does it directly state that satan is not a god? i'm not saying it doesn't, but i can't think of a spot off of the top of my head.
> 
> also i'm not really sure where you're going with your judaism/islam "point". they are clearly different religions though they do worship the same god.
> 
> i'm happy to discuss this with you, but please try to answer the points i raised in my OP. i.e., why is satan accorded so much power if he's not a deity.
> 
> jf


 
Satan's equivalent is Michael, the archangel.  He is NOT equal to God, the Bible makes it clear that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God and took 1/3 of the angels with him.  Sorry, don't have my Bible right with me to give the verses etc.


----------



## Tez3

jks9199 said:


> If I follow Jarrod's point properly, he's not suggesting that the TEACHINGS of Christianity support the idea that Satan is equal with God -- but that some people accord him equality in practice when they attribute bad events to him just as they attribute good to God. Interesting idea... and worth examining in your own life, if you happen to be Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> In Catholicism, we revere and adore the Virgin Mary and the saints for their holy lives. We don't worship them -- though the distinction can seem minor. When we pray to Mary or a saint, we ask their intercession, not for them to cause something directly. One way I've explained it before is to compare it with asking someone for a favor. Let's say you want concert tickets, and you happen to know someone who knows the band. You might ask your buddy to ask the band for tickets, right? Your buddy isn't really getting you the tickets, and you could go directly to the band -- but the chances that you'll get your tickets goes up if your buddy who's their friend asks on your behalf, right? Well, scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ never refused his mother (note the wedding at Canaa, for example), so if we want something, we might ask Mary to intercede on our behalf.


 

Ah thank you! should I refrain from saying that as a good Jewish son of course he did as him mother told him lol? I think when you are on the outside of any religion you can know the main tenets of that faith perhaps but not all the side things that people believe and do. 

One thing that gets me and I try to stay to avoid are people who convert to a religion, talking to people from other religions they have the same problem with them! I've only met one person who converted to Judaism ( we don't encourage it I wonder if this is why lol) nice person  but oh dear me, so enthusiastic, so 'into' everything, they wouldn't shut up lol. You know yourselves that when you grow up in a religion and choose to carry it on, you just sort of know things and follow them, it's always been part of your life but when someone converts they are taught so much ( takes 5 years to become Jewish) *that they want to share with you*! they make you feel that your faith and knowledge is lacking lol! Bless em! I know of a Jewish man who converted to Catholism, he ended up a bishop, you see what I mean? he just had to take it just that bit further


----------



## Tez3

If we discuss religions as we discuss our martial arts it turns out as an interesting discussion, I like my religion and my martial arts styles, they suit me, they won't suit everyone and discussing other religions and styles doesn't corrupt or interfere with our practices of either. By learning of others styles and religions we educate ourselves and others. We can respect each others beliefs in the same we can respect each others martial arts.

Oh and btw my religion is the right one and my style is the best :lfao:


----------



## elder999

punisher73 said:


> Satan's equivalent is Michael, the archangel. He is NOT equal to God, the Bible makes it clear that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God and took 1/3 of the angels with him. Sorry, don't have my Bible right with me to give the verses etc.


 
_*WHere*_, exactly, does "the Bible make it clear that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God and took 1/3 of the angels with him?"

Nowhere. The Bible is not very clear, when it comes to Satan. There are two references to the fall in the Old Testament, in Isiah and Ezekiel-the Jewish interpretation of these verses makes them metaphors for the fall of ancient kings, while the Christian intepretation makes them have parallel meanings: both about ancient kings AND Satan. In Job, we actually see a conversation and wager between God and Satan, which shows, at the very least, that _Satan still had  access to the Creator's throne_. 

Puzzling. :lfao:

Likewise, the statement made a few posts back that Satan is cut off from enlightenment, and that this is "clearly stated in the Bible," is specious-it doesn't say that anywhere, at least, it doesn't say it _clearly_.


The New Testament is even less clear-though it does make clear that Satan's fall was due to pride.

(BTW, there are several versions of the Bible online, with annotations and various translations)


----------



## Cryozombie

I just want to clarify a point that seems to have been overlooked.  

Evil doesn't come from Satan.  God Created both and gave mankind a choice.  Satan just TEMPS men to do evil.


----------



## Sukerkin

Tez3 said:


> Oh and btw my religion is the right one and my style is the best :lfao:


 
But ... but ... but ... how can that be? .  

It is widely accepted by the survey of one that I've just done in my head that *my* lack of religion is the correct path and it is eminently clear that *MY* style is superior to all others :lol:.

Seriously, some very good points coming forth now, ladies and gentlemen.  Indeed this discussion is interesting enough for me to think about looking throught the salient parts of various bible translations just to see how the interpretations vary :tup:.


----------



## Ray

Very interesting conversation going on here.

I personally believe that God is the Father of our spirits.  That Jesus is a separate being from the Father (but one in purpose).


----------



## Tez3

Sukerkin said:


> But ... but ... but ... how can that be? .
> 
> It is widely accepted by the survey of one that I've just done in my head that *my* lack of religion is the correct path and it is eminently clear that *MY* style is superior to all others :lol:.
> 
> Seriously, some very good points coming forth now, ladies and gentlemen. Indeed this discussion is interesting enough for me to think about looking throught the salient parts of various bible translations just to see how the interpretations vary :tup:.


 
The voices told *me* I was right, oh no have they lied? :uhyeah:

Out of curiosity does anyone believe that their deity or what they believe in is anything other than male? thinking back to when people worshipped the earth goddess and the Greeks, Romans and practically every other religion at that time had goddesses, is the current thinking that G-d, Satan, Jesus etc being male is the correct thing or just political thinking?  those of us who believe in a god all pray to the Father never the Mother ( I assume?) I think even those who are atheists don't believe in a male god lol!


----------



## FearlessFreep

Tez3 said:


> Out of curiosity does anyone believe that their deity or what they believe in is anything other than male?



Not literally but I take the terms 'male' and "Father" and the like for references to God as expressing a role or a relationship.  Not who or what God really is but who God is in relationship to us.  While not believing in the strict maleness of God, I avoid shying away too much from that metaphor because the metaphor is in place and I don't yet fully grasp it all so I am hesitant to discard it

and as Father myself, I do learn from that description without taking it as literal

Here's a song I wrote a long time ago about the parallels in understanding of what having a child means to me and in turn how I better understand how God views me because of that perspective



> I think I understand
> a little bit better
> I think it all makes
> a little more sense
> I think I can comprehend
> or maybe catch a glimpse
> Of why you love me
> 
> So small
> and helpless
> A tiny life, in my arms
> A tiny hand, in my palm
> So frail
> Defenseless
> A tiny gift that fills my heart
> Is this the way that you see me?
> So pure
> and trusting
> Is this what you hold in your heart
> When I cry out to you?
> 
> I think I realize
> what you're here for
> I think you open up
> my eyes to see
> As my heart breaks
> in love for you
> I learn His love for me
> 
> Child of mine
> By the grace of God
> Gift of life
> Held in my arms
> As I learn to love you more
> I learn God's love for me
> As you reach out to me
> I learn to reach out to Him
> You trust me, so innocent
> That's the faith I need


----------



## Sukerkin

Tez3 said:


> I think even those who are atheists don't believe in a male god lol!


 

You know, I feel that you may be right .  Because, in a sense, my agnosticism began as a reaction to the religious teachings of my youth, I do tend to think in those terms .

However, in terms of the benign mysticism based upon the self as a being in relation to (and part of) everything else, I do get a sense of the positive feminine side i.e. those fellings of cooperation rather than hostile competition or domination of those people and things around an individual.

Our own pagan traditions were very much rooted in such ideals - the Celts may have been warlike but they had their heads screwed on when it came to mystcism.  Darn those Roman's for caving into political pressure and then exporting their manufactured 'faith' over here .

EDIT:  By 'manufactured', what I mean is that the faith spread by the Holy Roman Empire was one that was reached by consensus voting of secret 'councils' and it was put in position by Imperial fiat from a need to quell the civil unrest being caused by the 'christian' elements of the population (who would not be recognisable as the meek followers of the Lamb of Christ, which is the Christian image today).


----------



## elder999

Tez3 said:


> The voices told *me* I was right, oh no have they lied? :uhyeah:
> 
> Out of curiosity does anyone believe that their deity or what they believe in is anything other than male? thinking back to when people worshipped the earth goddess and the Greeks, Romans and practically every other religion at that time had goddesses, is the current thinking that G-d, Satan, Jesus etc being male is the correct thing or just political thinking? those of us who believe in a god all pray to the Father never the Mother ( I assume?) I think even those who are atheists don't believe in a male god lol!


 

"God's" a little bit bigger than mere gender.

In fact, make that*A LOT* bigger. :lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin

I'm not so sure you have the rght of it there, *Elder*.

A great many of the modern 'gender' issues that our societies are wrestling with have come from roots deep in the 'Christian tradition' of God the Father and it's concomitant insistance that women are the 'inferior' of men.

More ancient religions did indeed appear to have a greater prescence for female divinities, as is evidenced by the fact that we still speak of Mother Earth and that, before the Roman invasion of Britain, we had pagan Saxon communities with the emphasis on hearth and family where the woman had a social role to play that was of high status.

I've often theorised what our world would be like if the rapid Christian domination of Rome's religious infrastructure, with all it's miltary might to enforce it's views, had not occured.


----------



## MA-Caver

Tez3 said:


> The voices told *me* I was right, oh no have they lied? :uhyeah:


 Voices in your head are always lying. Mine do... everytime I see a cute girl the voices say... "hey she REALLY REALLY likes you"... "oh yeah? I ask (in me head) "Yeah!" they answer... so I walk on over to her and "Hi baybee!" *SLAP!* ..... :miffer: damned voices did it again. 



Tez3 said:


> Out of curiosity does anyone believe that their deity or what they believe in is anything other than male? thinking back to when people worshipped the earth goddess and the Greeks, Romans and practically every other religion at that time had goddesses, is the current thinking that G-d, Satan, Jesus etc being male is the correct thing or just political thinking?  those of us who believe in a god all pray to the Father never the Mother ( I assume?) I think even those who are atheists don't believe in a male god lol!


There IS a Mother and she is more commonly known as Mother Nature. Sets the natural order of things, the seasons, the growths and how everything is in balance on the earth... except man. But presumably she is either so revered that she isn't mentioned or those bastard jesuits and whomever translated the bible were nothing more than a bunch of male chauvinistic pigs that wanted to maintain control over the women rather give them an idealogical figure head that they might start worshipping instead of the MALE. 
Through all my travels into the wilderness and my time spent threre I've can't help but come to acknowledge that there is no other explaination for how beautiful and wonderous Nature is and that it too must be directed with a feminine hand. 
I cannot believe that God The Father is a mere bachelor because if that were true then why build the female form. Genesis states "let US create Man (as in man kind... not just the sex) in OUR image. To me he was speaking to his wife, his counterpart. I also believe that Jesus Christ, being a pious Jew took upon himself a wife -- I speculate it's  Mary Mageline and that to protect her she was kept secret since the high priests and the romans usually have a tendency to eradicate a person entire. Meaning that his wife probably was kept secret for fears that the authorities may fear she was pregnant or come up with the unlawfully wedded, since Jesus told the jewish authorities when asked why he hasn't married? he responded that "since I am wed to an entire household (i.e. his mother and the sisters of Bethany), verily I woudl be stoned for adultry if I were to take upon another..." (or sumpthin like that). Though the use of the word WED... (sheesh another topic here... sorry) may mean taking responsiblity of the care and welfare of those women. 

Either way... hope that answers your question Tez... both of them... :lol:


----------



## elder999

Sukerkin said:


> I'm not so sure you have the rght of it there, *Elder*.
> .


 
Oh, but I do. Look at what I said-that "God" is bigger than gender-as opposed to, _*men's ideas about "God."*_

It's also important that one distinguish between "religion" and "God," especially in this instance, as most religions are reflections of the cultures in which they arose. It's from here that the gender issues you speak of generally arise.

In any case, even what are thought of as being the most gender-biased, patriarchal of religions, have some feminine aspect of "God," including "monotheistic" ones. In Judaism, for example, there is the _Shekhinah_, which literally means "dwelling," or  in dwelling, and is used to denote the _presence_ of God-especially in the tabernacle, or that cloud that manifested when the Hebrews were in the wilderness. It is also used, or thought by many Talmudic scholars (shekinhah being a feminine word) to denote the feminine attributes of God.


----------



## Ray

elder999 said:


> Oh, but I do. Look at what I said-that "God" is bigger than gender-as opposed to, _*men's ideas about "God."*_


since the thread is about Christianity, then when Jesus said "Abba" (not the old group) he meant "Father" else he could have chosen the aramaic word for mother.


----------



## KP.

jarrod said:


> where in the bible does it directly state that satan is not a god?  i'm not saying it doesn't, but i can't think of a spot off of the top of my head.



Christianity is not now, nor has it ever been, a book based religion. 

However, in Job you can read "One day the angels  came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them."


----------



## KP.

Ray said:


> since the thread is about Christianity, then when Jesus said "Abba" (not the old group) he meant "Father" else he could have chosen the aramaic word for mother.



He had to choose one or the other if he wanted to indicate familial intimacy. In a patriarchal society, the choice of 'Father' is  more linguistic than directive.

The notion that God properly understood has a penis always seems strange to me.  Moreover, it violates the Old Testament's earliest depiction of God. 

"So God created him in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. "

If you get into the Hebrew, it's fairly clear what's being said, and it's not that the male is God's image and the female isn't. Or that the male is somehow more like God than the female.


----------



## jarrod

thank you everyone for so many thoughtful points on this thread! unfortunately i sleep during the day so i missed out on much of the discussion as it was evolving. 



jks9199 said:


> If I follow Jarrod's point properly, he's not suggesting that the TEACHINGS of Christianity support the idea that Satan is equal with God -- but that some people accord him equality in practice when they attribute bad events to him just as they attribute good to God. Interesting idea... and worth examining in your own life, if you happen to be Christian.


 
that is it exactly. any student of religions should be aware that individual belief is not limited by the teaching of religious leadership, even if those individual beliefs are not fully analyzed. 

what got me thinking on this specifically was a conversation i had with a christian who said that when politician _X_ got elected, it was god's divine will. but when politician _Y_ got elected, it was evidence of satan's hand in the world. (in spite of god's will? in absense of god's action?). so while he did not come out & say that christianity was polytheistic & would probably contest the notion, it sounded to me as if his personal belief system accorded satan near equal power to god. 





Tez3 said:


> The voices told *me* I was right, oh no have they lied? :uhyeah:
> 
> Out of curiosity does anyone believe that their deity or what they believe in is anything other than male? thinking back to when people worshipped the earth goddess and the Greeks, Romans and practically every other religion at that time had goddesses, is the current thinking that G-d, Satan, Jesus etc being male is the correct thing or just political thinking? those of us who believe in a god all pray to the Father never the Mother ( I assume?) I think even those who are atheists don't believe in a male god lol!


 
elaine pagels, the author i mentioned earlier, also wrote a terrific book called "adam, eve, & the serpent" which discusses the removal of the feminine element from most christian theologies. it's been a while since i read it so i don't feel comfortable summarizing, but it is worth a look. i do remember noticing while reading genesis that the common interpretation of "the temptation of eve" doesn't conform with what is actually written. genesis expressly states that adam was there with eve while she spoke to the serpent; therefore he would have been fully aware that the fruit eve offered him came from the tree of knowledge. but when god asks what happened, adam blames eve as a deceiver. god punishes both which, to me, indicates that god wasn't taken in by adam's attempt to shift blame, though most early & medieval christian theology readily accepts adam's assertion that eve was the true sinner. personally, i think that the fact that the heavily patriarchial society of rome inherited christianity is the reason for removal of most feminist elements from christianity. 

to answer your question though, my personal belief perceives god as the sum & union of all things, which is personified in part through the joining of male & female. 

jf


----------



## jarrod

KP. said:


> Christianity is not now, nor has it ever been, a book based religion.


 
for better or worse, in some denominations of christianity it is (supposedly) based entirely on the authority of the bible.





KP. said:


> However, in Job you can read "One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them."


 
to my understanding, this seperates satan as something different from the angels & from YW, but doesn't clearly define his own status.

jf


----------



## Brian King

*Off topic*
Apologies in advance for my going a bit off topic with this post for although I am sitting by a nice comfortable fire it is snowing outside and I have a lot of driving to do in the morning and the thought of it may be making me even more cranky than usual. 

There have been some good thought provoking posts with thoughtful questions and replies, a give and take honest type of conversation that I enjoy, thank you to those that took the time voice your opinions and questions in a manner that treats the beliefs of others with respect. There have been other posts and portions of posts that fall short and it is these I am addressing in no particular order.




> he's questioning beliefs and asking questions, to my mind a good thing.


 
Questioning beliefs especially questioning ones own beliefs also to my mind are a good thing. I have seen this thread and will admit that the very first sentence in the OP (this isn't intended as a dig at christians as a whole, but) has kept me so far from posting any of my thoughts and opinions on the subject of the OP. If somebody writes something along the lines of I do not mean to be insulting but you just know that an insult is coming. I do not mean to be, this isnt intended to be a, and other similar phrases are just a ways of soft peddling the intended insult or dig. 

In this case in my opinion the Op is not so much asking what some believe but rather is stating their opinions on what others believe and then asking others to prove it mistaken. This tactic in my experience is much more likely to lead to confrontation rather than clarification and hinders that give and take conversation needed for positive communication.



> The pseudo-logical reason for this
> I think he's abrogated his innate responsibility to reason
> By your (let's be kind and call it) "thinking"
> book claimed to have been inspired by a being of unproven existence
> oh i'm sorry i must have misunderstood your "reasoning"
> my past memories of religious indoctrination
> exporting their manufactured 'faith' over here
> Christian infection of Rome
> demonstrates a weak character.
> bastard jesuits


 

No matter if unintentionally or deliberate language used as above is not meant to promote conversation or increase understanding in my opinion. It instead promotes defensiveness anger and frankly the feeling of why bother to respond as it is just more of the same silly shallow attacks, at least that is my own reaction, I can see and have seen in the past that for others the type of language above promotes a feeling of belonging and cohesiveness amongst those that share the belief of the writer and often leads to one-upmanship as restraints politeness and civility standards are loosened. This often leads to one sided conversation as those serious believers with an opposing view choose not to participate.




> I don't think it helps to examine the issue simply to say that other religious groups are just as aggressive in rejecting proper discussion of 'doctrine' as the worst of fundamentalist Christians.


 
This is the quote that brought me into the thread. I find it amusing and irritating at the same time when some compare the evil fundamentalist Christians with the evil Fundamentalist Muslims. One when they disagree with you will pray to their God that you find salvation the other will drug you, bind you and cut off your head while recording the screaming for your children and loved ones to see and hear. One will protest and/or boycott an artist defiling their God in artwork or writing (I am thinking the urine and feces artwork of a few years ago) while others will burn down buildings and have riots that kill hundreds of innocents over cartoons in a paper and will put out death threats and carry out assassinations of authors and artists that defile their religion no matter how slight. Some might have a difficult time seeing the deference in religious groups, I do not.




> if this discussion gets your hackles up, feel free to withdraw your participation, no hard feelings


 
Sound advice given (thank you) and advice I heeded up to now. I wanted to take a moment to point out the language used in the hopes that future thread authors and posters might take a little more time with their wording if they truly do want to have conversation that will lead to mutual understanding rather than insults and non-participation. I will again take up this advice as much of the conversation does indeed get my hackles up even as other parts I find interesting and thoughtful so am again withdrawing back to lurk mode. 

Warmest regards
Brian King


----------



## jarrod

brian, thanks for dropping by to share your thoughts.  the first line you quoted from my OP was really not intended to mask an insult; really my point was never to insult anybody but to create a dialogue on the usefulness of religious classifications, among other things.  i preceeded my thoughts with a "no offense intended" because i know how hard it is to discuss religion without emotions flaring up.  at any rate, best of luck with your drive tomorrow, & happy lurking.

now back to the point at hand: exodus 7:8-13

  " 8 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 9 "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." 
 10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said."

i think it's interesting here that the pharoh's sorcerers were able to replicate the miracle.  i think that if you were reading this story objectively, it appears as if the message isn't that other gods don's exist, but that the god of the hebrews is more powerful.  if this is the case then it is also interesting because i cannot immediately think of another religion that admits the existence of other gods.  the typical model when two religions intersect is to a) deny the existence of the other deities or b) equate the two (i.e., venus is just what the romans call aphrodite, the germans call zeus wodan, etc).

thoughts?

jf


----------



## GBlues

elder999 said:


> _*WHere*_, exactly, does "the Bible make it clear that Satan was an angel who rebelled against God and took 1/3 of the angels with him?"
> 
> Nowhere. The Bible is not very clear, when it comes to Satan. There are two references to the fall in the Old Testament, in Isiah and Ezekiel-the Jewish interpretation of these verses makes them metaphors for the fall of ancient kings, while the Christian intepretation makes them have parallel meanings: both about ancient kings AND Satan. In Job, we actually see a conversation and wager between God and Satan, which shows, at the very least, that _Satan still had access to the Creator's throne_.
> 
> Puzzling. :lfao:
> 
> Likewise, the statement made a few posts back that Satan is cut off from enlightenment, and that this is "clearly stated in the Bible," is specious-it doesn't say that anywhere, at least, it doesn't say it _clearly_.
> 
> 
> The New Testament is even less clear-though it does make clear that Satan's fall was due to pride.
> 
> (BTW, there are several versions of the Bible online, with annotations and various translations)


 
Well, there are two references to the fall. However, the reality is it didn't happen until after Satans accusal of Job. Job is really what go the whole thing started. But the bible does make it clear, that it was Satan that instigated the rebellion in heaven. But yes in the new testament and I forget where as it has been a very long time since I have sat down and read the bible from cover to cover, the demons, which Satan is one of, are cut off from all enlightenment. Matter of fact that is exactly what it says if memory serves me right. " for they are cut-off from all enlightenment." I would imagine there is a reason for that. How long were the angels around before the earth was even created? How long before man? We don't know it could have been millions of years. It's not like man's test is exactly stacked in his favor you know. To take this one step further, this really is a test, and really started with Adam and Eve. In my mind the bible basically stated that god created adam and eve perfectly. To my mind that means without flaw. Yet, they sinned? So if they were perfect human beings and they sinned, then how are we to pass this test we live in now?

To take this even one step further there are some religions or theologians that believe the word adam in the original texts meant, "all mankind" and that eve meant, "all womankind" so if that be true, then satan didn't decieve only two people, but the entire world. That's some persuasion. Last but not least I don't believe that I am a fallen angel that was sent here to be tested that is not stated in the bible. Matter of fact the whole you have a soul is not stated in the bible. THe only reference to death and what happens when you die is, " That from dust you are and from dust you shall return and on that day your thoughts do cease" Is pretty straight forward. To know that your in heaven there must be some thought process going on. To know that your being punished there must be some thought process going on. But if your thoughts do cease,  then how can it be that you would go to heaven and enjoy the bliss of it?:asian:


----------



## theletch1

MOD NOTE:

All users please take not that this thread has been moved to the Philosophy and Spirituality forum as opposed to the Study.  Please keep the rules for posting in this forum in mind while participating in this thread.


----------



## seasoned

jarrod said:


> brian, thanks for dropping by to share your thoughts. the first line you quoted from my OP was really not intended to mask an insult; really my point was never to insult anybody but to create a dialogue on the usefulness of religious classifications, among other things. i preceeded my thoughts with a "no offense intended" because i know how hard it is to discuss religion without emotions flaring up. at any rate, best of luck with your drive tomorrow, & happy lurking.
> 
> now back to the point at hand: exodus 7:8-13
> 
> " 8 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 9 "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake."
> 10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said."
> 
> i think it's interesting here that the pharoh's sorcerers were able to replicate the miracle. i think that if you were reading this story objectively, it appears as if the message isn't that other gods don's exist, but that the god of the hebrews is more powerful. if this is the case then it is also interesting because i cannot immediately think of another religion that admits the existence of other gods. the typical model when two religions intersect is to a) deny the existence of the other deities or b) equate the two (i.e., venus is just what the romans call aphrodite, the germans call zeus wodan, etc).
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> jf


 
Very excellent thread jarrod. There is more information here, than I cared to know. This has to be the ultimate cross training experience.J It all can be very confusing, and therefore the more info, makes it more so. As naïve as it sounds, my approach to this whole thing is very elementary, and childlike. There are many Gods, yes, because that is the main idea of the Christian faith, freedom of choice. Choose ye this day whom you will follow. To those who follow Satin, he is a God, to them anyway. To those who follow the God of Israel, to them, this is the true God. I believe there is a holy spirit as well as an unholy one, trying to get our vote. My vote goes to  there is one God, creator of heaven and earth. And there are many avenues to him because of the many different people on earth. This I feel is very cool. As in MA, there are many ways, heading toward the same core theme. What is that theme, is not for us to know at this time, that is why it is said, by *faith *we are saved. Jesus said while teaching children, that we must approach God the same way, with that child like mentality. Kid stuff? My 2 cents, I hope I am not too far off topic.


----------



## Tez3

I think that some people do go far more deeply nto things than the rest of us have time for! I was thinking of the evolution v creation argument in particular. It's fine for scientists to work on their evolution theories and the religionists to work on their creation theories but for the majority of us it is literally an academic argument. Whatever happened all those very long years ago has really little bearing on our lives when you're under stress trying to support families, keep your job, keep your car running, worry about your children etc. We simply don't have the time or the spare mental capacity left over from everyday living to actually really think about these things deeply and to consider whether it effects us know. Does the fact you are decended from Adam or an ape affect keeping your job in this depression?

I know a few people are deeply involved in their religion to the extent they run their lives by it totally but the majority of us don't or can't. It's one of the nice things about MT that for a little while we can discuss things like that (and martial arts!) on here.

One thing I was thinking about is why we give gods whichever, human aspects? All the 'old' gods are human in all but their 'superhuman' powers, Jesus is in human form, even the Egyptian and Hindu gods while not looking human are given aspects we as humans can relate to. All religions of course have symbols, 'logos' and physical things we can identify ourselves with, do we need these or can we have faith without any physical reminders?


----------



## elder999

GBlues said:


> Well, there are two references to the fall. However, the reality is it didn't happen until after Satans accusal of Job.
> Job is really what go the whole thing started.


 
Interesting. Not quite accurate, though, and-again, a matter of belief, not necessarily facts.

The two references to the fall are found in Ezekiel and Isaiah. While, as I said earlier, they are thought to be metaphoric references to the fall of kings, specifically the King of Babylon ant the King of Tyre, we'll approach them as though they are factual references to the fall of Satan.

In any case, if we look to Ezekiel first, we find it's the easier book to date, because of several references made to the king of Jerusalem and other occurences. We can infer from these (without going into detail) that the book was probably first written between 593 and 571 BC. Most scholars, secular and religious,  are in agreement with these dates, with a slight bias towards, of course, a later date. The argument about Ezekiel's authorship, however, is another matter, and not really germain here.

If we look to Isaiah, we find that it also can be dated, or at least its authorship dated, to between 800 B.C. and 687 B.C. when it's events are thought to have taken place, specifically, the rule of Uzziah and the presumed (Talmudically) martyrdom of Isaiah. 

In both these cases, I've used presumed dates based upon content, rather than actual dating of the earliest fragments of the books, which of course are later.  So we have the events of Ezekiel and Isaiah taking place around 800-570 B.C.

Most religious scholarship places Job in, as you've inferred, the age of the Patriarchs, and even attributes authorship to Moses. It's likely that the man referred to was a Midianite, perhaps even Moses's father in law's great-grandfather. There are references to his acting as priest for his family, though, so we know that the content is thought to be prior to the Exodus. In this case you're right-the events of Job precede those of Isaiah and Ezekiel-but do they precede the fall?  (Interestingly, Job is a bit of a mess, from a secular point of view, with later additions, and the possibility of being Sumerian in origin, but, as usual, I digress....:lol)

No, they cannot precede "the fall," because those events are presumed to have taken place before the Creation-or, at least, contemporaneously with it-we have "the Serpent," in the Garden of Eden, leading to, of course, _man's fall,_ and all the events of the Bible proceed from there. 

The events of Job cannot have taken place "before the fall," at least, not to a believer-the view of secular scholarship isn't too different, though. :lol:



GBlues said:


> But the bible does make it clear, that it was Satan that instigated the rebellion in heaven.


 
Where, exactly?



GBlues said:


> But yes in the new testament and I forget where as it has been a very long time since I have sat down and read the bible from cover to cover, the demons, which Satan is one of, are cut off from all enlightenment. Matter of fact that is exactly what it says if memory serves me right. " for they are cut-off from all enlightenment."


 
Memory doesn't serve you right. The word "enlightenment," _*never*_ appears in the Bible. "Enlightened," yes. "Enlighten," yes. Never that other.

See enlightenment here:


> Search Results for &#8220;enlightenment&#8221;
> 
> 
> No documents match the query.



 enlightened here, and enlighten here.

In any case, a verse that even resembles what you're remembering does not appear in any Bible verse found in the above online searches of the King James Version of the Bible.


As for the rest of your post, it was delightful-but, as I said, we don't have the events of the Garden of Eden-specifically, Eve's and Adam's "sin"-without the temptation of the serpent, the father of lies, etc., etc., etc.-and that took place before everything else in the "Bible." :lol:


----------



## elder999

Brian said:


> The pseudo-logical reason for this&#8221;
> &#8220;I think he's abrogated his innate responsibility to reason&#8221;
> &#8220;By your (let's be kind and call it) "thinking"
> &#8220;book claimed to have been inspired by a being of unproven existence&#8221;
> &#8220;oh i'm sorry i must have misunderstood your "reasoning"&#8221;
> &#8220;my past memories of religious indoctrination&#8221;
> &#8220;exporting their manufactured 'faith' over here&#8221;
> &#8220;Christian infection of Rome&#8221;
> &#8220;demonstrates a weak character.&#8221;
> &#8220;bastard jesuits&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> No matter if unintentionally or deliberate language used as above is not meant to promote conversation or increase understanding in my opinion.



While the confrontational nature of some of those quotes might be debatable, one has to remember that context is everything, and they are not, necessarily, confrontational at all. 

Speaking to context, *you're* the only one who has posted them in this thread. :lfao:




Brian said:


> This is the quote that brought me into the thread. I find it amusing and irritating at the same time when some compare the evil fundamentalist Christians with the evil Fundamentalist Muslims. One when they disagree with you will pray to their God that you find salvation the other will drug you, bind you and cut off your head while recording the screaming for your children and loved ones to see and hear. One will protest and/or boycott an artist defiling their God in artwork or writing (I am thinking the urine and feces artwork of a few years ago) while others will burn down buildings and have riots that kill hundreds of innocents over cartoons in a paper and will put out death threats and carry out assassinations of authors and artists that defile their religion no matter how slight. Some might have a difficult time seeing the deference in religious groups, I do not.
> 
> Warmest regards
> Brian King


 
Yer "evil fundamentalist Christians" picket funerals of vets with signs that say "God hates fags," and "Thank God for Iraq," and do really, really stupid things like blow up abortion clinics (which could kill pregnant women receiving an abortion, and kill a fetus, which is just stupid since that's what they're trying to prevent, or at least protest) and assassinate doctors. 

But hey, there's no comparison.....:lfao:


----------



## elder999

Ray said:


> since the thread is about Christianity, then when Jesus said "Abba" (not the old group) he meant "Father" else he could have chosen the aramaic word for mother.


 
Actually, the aramaic root _ab_, meaning "all fruit," and denoting parenting, is gender neutral, though the literal meaning is "O father," or "papa"-something that denotes formality and intimacy as well-a combination of love and formal respect, like "papa" or even "dad." Since he was probably  denoting a personal parent, he likely did say "abba," which is really  more like "dad," than "father," but he just as likely could have used _abawoon_, which denotes "father/mother," or "parents"  in the Lord's prayer-I've seen it written that way. In Gesthemane, however, he definitely prays: "_Abba_,all things are possible to you, let this cup pass...." 

Anyway, it's not as clear cut as some of us would like, especially when one gets into reading earlier translations in source languages. In the Greek, as well as later translations, the above verse uses "Abba, *Father*,"  it uses both-whether to denote gender or some level of respect and filial piety, who can say......


----------



## KP.

GBlues said:


> Well, there are two references to the fall. However, the reality is it didn't happen until after Satans accusal of Job.



The bible is a collection of texts and are not collated into a strict chronological order, and it's very dangerous to take texts like Job too literally, for a whole variety of reasons, both textual and theological.

Job is part of the Wisdom Literature of the Bible, it's a story designed to instruct about the character of man in relationship to God and is not a literal tale. 

(It's also interesting to note that there is very good textual reasons to believe that the last chapter, where Job lives happily ever after, was added long after the text was originally penned.)


----------



## KP.

GBlues said:


> To take this even one step further there are some religions or theologians that believe the word adam in the original texts meant, "all mankind" and that eve meant, "all womankind" so if that be true, then satan didn't decieve only two people, but the entire world.




There's a reason that Jewish theology, as well as Christians, hold that a man and woman are not married until the marriage has been consummated. There is a tradition as old as the religions themselves that it is not as individuals that we are in the image of god, but when we are united as male and female, and share in God's creation of the world that we are most like him.

A divine orgasm isn't just metaphor 

Hebrew for "Human" is:
&#1513;&#1500; &#1488;&#1491;&#1501;      

Hebrew for "Adam" is:
&#1488;&#1491;&#1501;

In Genesis 1:27 --

&#1488; &#1464;&#1512; &#1456;&#1489; &#1460;


----------



## Sukerkin

That's quite a fascinating insight, *KP*.  

I do confess that I've not heard that before and, altho' it's been a long time since I heavily studied scripture, I considered myself more knowledgeable than average about it.

Thank you for adding to the stock of my experience.


----------



## Tez3

I have heard stories/myths/legends whatever from various sources that say we were originally one sex but were split into male and female for verious reasons depending on who tells the story. Ever since that split we have to look for and find our other half. it's  a romantic story but I admit I like it. I like the idea too from KPs post that united we are in the image of G-d. the problem is of course when you know you've found the other part of you but he doesn't agree and finds his other half. Incredibly painful and no amount of religion helps!


----------



## Ray

elder999 said:


> Actually, the aramaic root _ab_, meaning "all fruit," and denoting parenting, is gender neutral, though the literal meaning is "O father," or "papa"-something that denotes formality and intimacy as well-a combination of love and formal respect, like "papa" or even "dad." Since he was probably denoting a personal parent, he likely did say "abba," which is really more like "dad," than "father," but he just as likely could have used _abawoon_, which denotes "father/mother," or "parents" in the Lord's prayer-I've seen it written that way. In Gesthemane, however, he definitely prays: "_Abba_,all things are possible to you, let this cup pass...."
> 
> Anyway, it's not as clear cut as some of us would like, especially when one gets into reading earlier translations in source languages. In the Greek, as well as later translations, the above verse uses "Abba, *Father*," it uses both-whether to denote gender or some level of respect and filial piety, who can say......


Again, since the thread is about "Christianity" then I can draw on a christian source (NT) and determine that an eye-witness heard the words that were recorded.  If I were looking at it from a critical perspective then I could say "maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, maybe he existed, maybe he didn't.  Maybe the witness heard it wrong or slanted it towards his/her own belief of a male deity."  I could do maybe's ad infinitum.

To add to the thread whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being, John 17:11 relates where Christ prayed for his apostles to be one even as the Jesus and God are.  Did he mean that they should become "one being"?


----------



## elder999

Ray said:


> Again, since the thread is about "Christianity" then I can draw on a christian source (NT) and determine that an eye-witness
> heard the words that were recorded. If I were looking at it from a critical perspective then I could say "maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, maybe he existed, maybe he didn't. Maybe the witness heard it wrong or slanted it towards his/her own belief of a male deity." I could do maybe's ad infinitum


 
...and? Not really sure what you're trying to say: no where have I inferred or intimated that he didn't say these things, did or didn't exist. WHat I've said is that, basically, the root of _abba_ does not necessarily denote gender. While he is said to have said "father," it could easily and more readily have been, _abawoon,_ or _abawani_: "mother/father," or, more properly, *"birther,"* as in _creator._ The difference is merely semantic for most-though it does say something about the _words we use and the way we should address and think about "God,"_esoterically speaking.

.


Ray said:


> To add to the thread whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being, John 17:11 relates where Christ prayed for his apostles to be one even as the Jesus and God are. Did he mean that they should become "one being"?


 
THis is Jesus's so called _ High Priestly prayer,_ where he is praying for the apostles and the world as an intercessor. In point of fact, he doesn't mean that the apostles (and the world) should be "one being," but _one church_-that they should remain united in society and in God. 

Whether or not that's actually happened, and the degree to which it has or hasn't happened, is, of course, open to interpretation.


----------



## Ray

elder999 said:


> ...and? Not really sure what you're trying to say: no where have I inferred or intimated that he didn't say these things, did or didn't exist. WHat I've said is that, basically, the root of _abba_ does not necessarily denote gender. While he is said to have said "father," it could easily and more readily have been, _abawoon,_ or _abawani_: "mother/father," or, more properly, *"birther,"* as in _creator._ The difference is merely semantic for most-though it does say something about the _words we use and the way we should address and think about "God,"_esoterically speaking.


He did or he didn't.  To say that the word "Abba" _could have been_ something else is to inferr that _maybe_ he didn't say them.  That's okay to hold that view, it all depends on the perspective of the holder.


elder999 said:


> THis is Jesus's so called _High Priestly prayer,_ where he is praying for the apostles and the world as an intercessor. In point of fact, he doesn't mean that the apostles (and the world) should be "one being," but _one church_-that they should remain united in society and in God.


I agree, which I why I used that reference.


elder999 said:


> Whether or not that's actually happened, and the degree to which it has or hasn't happened, is, of course, open to interpretation.


Exactly my point.


----------



## elder999

Ray said:


> He did or he didn't. To say that the word "Abba" _could have been_ something else is to inferr that _maybe_ he didn't say them. That's okay to hold that view, it all depends on the perspective of the holder.


 
It's been written _abba_; it's been written _abawoon_. Depends on which source document you look at. Translated, it invariably winds up "abba." To ascribe intention to translations, though, especially the excrable King James Version, is murky at best.




Ray said:


> Exactly my point.


 
But was really never mine-mine being that just because he calls "God" "father," even under the circumstances of his "birth," does not necessarily mean that he discounted a feminine aspect of "God." Might mean that the people who wrote those things down afterward-even those eye-witnesses you spoke of-did, might mean that later cultures that translated it did, might even mean that he did.  You can't really say as much based on a simple view of the language, though, and that's all that I'm really saying in this instance. There are esoteric meanings and nuances to everything recorded in the New Testament, especially when it comes to the sayings of the rabbi Yeshua......


----------



## elder999

On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:


----------



## Ray

elder999 said:


> It's been written _abba_; it's been written _abawoon_. Depends on which source document you look at. Translated, it invariably winds up "abba." To ascribe intention to translations, though, especially the excrable King James Version, is murky at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was really never mine-mine being that just because he calls "God" "father," even under the circumstances of his "birth," does not necessarily mean that he discounted a feminine aspect of "God." Might mean that the people who wrote those things down afterward-even those eye-witnesses you spoke of-did, might mean that later cultures that translated it did, might even mean that he did. You can't really say as much based on a simple view of the language, though, and that's all that I'm really saying in this instance. There are esoteric meanings and nuances to everything recorded in the New Testament, especially when it comes to the sayings of the rabbi Yeshua......


You said :


> Whether or not that's actually happened, and the degree to which it has or hasn't happened, is, of course, open to interpretation.


And I agree. If I made it less than clear, I hope it's plain now.


----------



## tahuti

For the first post would suggest reading on Manichaeism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism 
 Even if religious &quot;theorists&quot; claim 1 God, after all preaching against power of evil, common men will start seeing it as dualistic, equal power.  Good read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy 

 There are few belief modalities dualistic/monotheistic is one god and everything else is not god so evil, basically creating  wall between 2 categories, anything you encounter must fit in one of 2 categories, everything not on good side must be evil so destroy; polarity - ying yang symbol is good example, one creates another, so you need to figure how it fits with its opposite to understand it as a whole; pluralistic/polytheistic - too many different way of thinking, but any new encounter forces you to evaluate what it means.

 Regarding saints, if I remember, you are supposed to think them as lenses to God, or particular aspect of God. It is bit hard to think in terms of Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence.


----------



## Cryozombie

I think God hates women.

Or maybe I am just annoyed with them right now.  

I forget which.


Actually I just wanna toss this out there.  I don't know why, its SLIGHTLY off topic.  



> Most of the Bible's teachings about women are based upon the foundation laid in Genesis. It doesn't matter whether we interpret the creation story in Genesis literally or figuratively; God's intentions for men and women are spelled out clearly.
> 
> God created the woman as a "helper" for the man:
> 
> The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." (NIV, Genesis 2:18)
> 
> However, being a "helper" does not imply that the woman was inferior or subservient to the man; the same Hebrew word, `ezer, translated as "helper," is used to describe God, Himself, in Psalms 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11. In fact, God created both men and women in His own image and made them equal custodians of all His creation:
> 
> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (NRSV, Genesis 2:27-28)
> 
> When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." (NIV, Genesis 5:1-2)
> 
> But the man and woman, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. God gave each of them punishments before evicting them from the Garden:
> 
> To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (NIV, Genesis 3:16-19)
> 
> It is not clear in what sense the husband was to rule over his wife, and this been the subject of much debate. Regardless of how Eve's punishment was originally intended, this passage is key to understanding later Biblical teachings about women. The punishments on both Adam and Eve were clearly imposed by God Himself; God did not reduce women to inferior status, nor did He command men to rule harshly over their wives. However, in the course of history, it has sometimes been thought that God's punishment of Eve was justification for degradation and subjugation of women.


----------



## Ninjamom

elder999 said:


> Yer "evil fundamentalist Christians" picket funerals of vets with signs that say "God hates fags," and "Thank God for Iraq," and do really, really stupid things like blow up abortion clinics (which could kill pregnant women receiving an abortion, and kill a fetus, which is just stupid since that's what they're trying to prevent, or at least protest) and assassinate doctors.
> 
> But hey, there's no comparison.....:lfao:


You DO realize that there is exactly *one* (1) "church" in the entire US that has picketed funerals, holding up signs saying "Thank God for Iraq" (which, if the church has 200 members, represents about 1 ten thousandth of one percent of the number of Christians in the US), and that 'all that violence against abortion clinics' was actually 5 occurrences, killing a total of seven people?  Admittedly, that is 7 too many deaths, but it is insignificant compared with the number of adherents of Wahhabism, (the ultra-conservative sect of Islam that advocates violent _jihad_ against the West, comprised of about 10% of all Muslims, or approximately 100 million practitioners), and the reported 12402 deadly attacks since 2001 and 857 deaths in the last month alone, attributed to their Islamo-fascist adherents.

So you are right - there is no comparison.

_(Just had to point this out - I always hated 'moral equivalency' arguments in discussions about the US and the Soviet Union back in the 1970's and 1980's, and I didn't want to see the same type of thinking going unquestioned with regards to Christianity and the more radicalized branches of Islam.)_

As far as the original post, jarrod, I totally agree that many individual adherents of Christianity conflate the actions of God and satan.  One of the most far-reaching aspects of theology is the whole idea of the sovereignty of God - the idea that nothing that happens is outside His overarching control and care.  While the free-will choices of various characters may place them individually in the categories of 'good' or 'evil' (or 'right' or 'wrong'), those actions and choices do not 'take God by surprise' or in any way alter His plan or the final outcome for the history of the world.  

Someone early in the discussion mentioned the Zoroastrians and their deity, Ahura Mazda.  I was privileged in college to have a friend and fellow-student who was a Zoroastrian (a rarity, since they are a dwindling and persecuted minority in their own land), and we were able to have some interesting discussions of belief.  Mostly, Ahura Mazda was viewed as possessing both 'good' and 'evil' attributes, so instead of having a 'god' and 'anti-god' view, both attributes were seen as present in the one being.  What I see as the important difference in Christianity is the view that God is all good and perfect, with no evil in Him.  Couple this with His sovereignty, and the result is that we can be assured that, despite how things look, good will ulimately triumph over evil.  This is the source of incredible peace and hope in the midst of the most difficult times.

I'll add one more thought on the topics under discussion, but only because it is Christmas time 

One of the sub-discussions in this thread focussed on whether Christianity was polytheistic in regard to the unity/differences between God the Father and Jesus.  The Bible (and Orthodox Judaism) are crystal clear that God is *one* (see for instance Dt. 6:4-5), and Jesus is equally-clearly presented in the Gospels as fully human - He was born, got tired, slept, ate, etc.  It is also clear through the Bible that God promised that He Himself would save His people from their sins (see for instance, Isaiah 12:1-3, Isaiah 59 [especially vs 16], and numerous others).  However, the Gospel of Matthew reports that the angel told Joseph to call the Child to be born "Jesus, because *he* (i.e., Jesus) will save his people from their sins." The verse continues, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"&#8212;which means, "God with us." (Matthew 1:20-22).

THAT is the miracle celebrated at Christmas - God, the eternal, the infinite, the one-and-only, stepped into time and space and walked among us.  He experienced life the way we do: thinking, feeling, hurting.  He didn't stay far off or distant or unknowable or unimagineable.  He didn't just send prophets or angels or even just a book - He came Himself!  This is Jesus.  God with us.  Immanuel.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Tez3

elder999 said:


> On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:


 
It wasn't so much that as the fact he picked us for his Chosen people, not only did we insist on a contract we then proceeded to argue about nearly everything! Hmm, we still do! Still I think that makes Jewish peoples relationship with G-d a very close and personal one where no one else can intervene. It may not be the most pious one, or even as respectful as many Christians, but it's a family thing.


----------



## elder999

Ninjamom said:


> So you are right - there is no comparison.
> 
> _(Just had to point this out - I always hated 'moral equivalency' arguments in discussions about the US and the Soviet Union back in the 1970's and 1980's, and I didn't want to see the same type of thinking going unquestioned with regards to Christianity and the more radicalized branches of Islam.)_


 
Actually, I think it's more important to point out that the _*righteous*_ are often _as stupid as a box of tire chains,_ and it doesn't matter what flavor of _"righteousness kool-aid_" they're swilling. Fact is, we wouldn't have had all that Nazi atrocity if those people weren't convinced they were in the  right. Same for just about any other atrocity, really: Darfir, Rwanda, 9/11, take your pick.It seems to me that  before we go looking abroad at people who bend their knees to something different and _their_ particular flavor of kool-aid, we'd do well to see how little it would take to start mixing some of our own......

.....good post, btw.


----------



## Kacey

elder999 said:


> On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:



This is an interesting point, and brings up a question I have about Catholicism, in particular.  I have no real problem with a tripartite God - 3 aspects of a single God doesn't cause me any particular confusion.  But as others have mentioned, Christianity - and especially Catholicism - has quite a pantheon going, and I don't really understand how it works, or how the various levels of martyrs, saints, angels, arch-angels, devils, etc. relate to each other, and where they fall in the hierarchy compared to God.  This has been touched on somewhat - but it doesn't really answer my question.

It also leads to another discussion:  the one that lead to the separation between Judaism and Christianity.  Jews believe that the Messiah will not come until the entire human race believes there is only one God - an occurrence that has not yet happened.  That's why Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah - the conditions for the coming of the Messiah have not been met.  So how does the above question about Catholicism and this one affect the question of monotheism?



Tez3 said:


> It wasn't so much that as the fact he picked us for his Chosen people, not only did we insist on a contract we then proceeded to argue about nearly everything! Hmm, we still do! Still I think that makes Jewish peoples relationship with G-d a very close and personal one where no one else can intervene. It may not be the most pious one, or even as respectful as many Christians, but it's a family thing.


Of course, Jews being the Chosen people has caused all sorts of controversy over the years (after all, how _dare_ we consider ourselves "chosen") - but all it means, in Judaic theology, is that when the world ends, all of the Jews in the world will be given their eternal disposition first.  There actually is no afterlife in Judaism - the belief is that when you die, that's it, you're dead, until the end of the world, when God will gather the peoples of the world and do.... something undefined with them.


----------



## Ninjamom

Kacey said:


> ...... question I have about Catholicism, in particular. ............I don't really understand how it works, or how the various levels of martyrs, saints, angels, arch-angels, devils, etc. relate to each other, and where they fall in the hierarchy compared to God.


I was brought up very-Catholic (as opposed to being just plain-old-regular Catholic ), so I can take a stab at this one.

All of the things you mentioned (angels, demons, arch-angels, saints, martyrs, etc.) are all created beings.  Nothing and no one is higher than or even equal to God.  Angels were created before people.  Archangels are just higher ranking angels, sort of like 'generals' in the angelic armies.  Neither angels nor archangels are to be prayed to or worshipped.  They are other beings, created by God, that do God's will (or not - I believe they also have free will).  There is some debate over whether human beings are ranked 'higher' or 'lower', but for now let's just say we're 'different', and were created for different purposes.

Martyrs are people who were killed because of their testimony of Jesus Christ.  Their faith ended up costing them their lives.  They are not super-beings.  They are not of a higher rank.  They are people just like you and me, only their faith and steadfastness even in the face of opposition are good examples worth following.

Saints are not worshipped either, and are not viewed as equal to God, or even as 'demi-gods'.  In the strictest sense, a 'saint' is anyone who is in the family of God through faith.  This includes all the believers in God of old, like Moses, and Abraham, and King David.  It also includes all the faithful followers of Jesus, like Peter, and Paul, and Mary (even if they aren't 'Leaving on a Jet Plane'  ).  This makes 'the saints' the collection of all the faithful - past, present, and future.  

Obviously, no one but God would know the names of all "the faithful" from all ages of time, and only God would be able to know someone's heart (to tell if an individual is really 'faithful', or a hypocrite, or a religious 'poser').  However, in certain cases, the Catholic Church has identified individuals who have shown the evidence of faith in their lives, and have proof of several miracles in direct answer to their prayers.  The Catholic Church may 'canonize' such individuals, or recognize them 'officially' as saints.

In such cases, saints may be 'prayed to' in the sense of 'petitioned', or 'asked' - just like I might ask a close friend to pray for me, a Catholic might ask Saint Matthew to pray for him, and for the same reason - both my friend sitting right next to me and Saint Matthew in heaven are alive and in relationship to God through faith, and so can pray.  Ultimately, it is God we are all asking for help.

The problem comes in practice - just like jarrod's original post.  Even though the official Catholic position and teaching would be against the worship of any saint, that distinction is lost in practice among some rank-n-file Catholics, so in effect, many Catholics do worship saints.  Also, through the years, the veneration of Mary (the earthly mother of Jesus) has grown to the point where she is officially called a 'co-redemptrix' (making her equal in redemption to Christ), and it is taught that she never died, never sinned, and is now seated as the 'queen of heaven'.  (That's where I sort of made my own personal Exodus from the Roman Catholic Church)

Confused yet?



> It also leads to another discussion: the one that lead to the separation between Judaism and Christianity. Jews believe that the Messiah will not come until the entire human race believes there is only one God - an occurrence that has not yet happened. That's why Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah - the conditions for the coming of the Messiah have not been met. So how does the above question about Catholicism and this one affect the question of monotheism?


 Interesting, because my understanding is that the world can only believe in one God *because of *the Messiah (Isaiah 49:6), and others would only believe *when *He returns (Zech 12:10).



> Of course, Jews being the Chosen people has caused all sorts of controversy over the years (after all, how _dare_ we consider ourselves "chosen")


I always thought this begged a bigger question: "Chosen .... for what?"  If God is truly sovereign (which I believe He is), then He has a specific plan for every individual, and every nation, and every people that he created (I don't see Him as making a lot of back-stage extras with no speaking parts).  I think there could be nothing better in life than to find your own part in His project and jump right into it.

My own understanding is that God's plan for the Jewish nation (the 'what for' of their being Chosen) was to make Him known (see Isaiah 43:10).  Their 'job description' was to make known the one true God, and I believe this happened through Jesus as the Messiah - I know that we disagree on this, but consider that 1/4 of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because of the word of this one 'Member of the Tribe'.

How does all this relate to the original questions about monotheism?  At the root, all three of these faiths (Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity-as-understood-by-me) are all monotheistic, and we are all seeking to understand the same One God.


----------



## Marginal

elder999 said:


> On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:


He even had a wife for a while. Goofy retcon.


----------



## Tez3

Marginal said:


> He even had a wife for a while. Goofy retcon.


 
Certainly did!

On a total side note, don't want to sidetrack this thread but do want to say last night I was watching a programme about three Catholic priests with amazing singing voices who are releasing an album of sacred songs. do rush out and buy this whatever your faith even if none as the music is wonderful!
The priests themselves, two brothers and their childhood friend came across as being open, educated and I think hopeful of the new ireland without sectarian violence. they were delightful, I thought what good rabbis they would have made lol ( rabbis is a teacher not a priest though many think its otherwise). No preaching, no 'my religion right, yours wrong' we've had in the past, just a sense of fun and openmindedness with clearly a love for their god. People may not understand what this means in Northern Ireland but I think it's hopeful.
Oh and they truned down 3 million pounds as they didn't want to leave their 'day' jobs! refreshing in this day and age! the money they do earn is going to charity.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v6g5X2hGab0&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQ1nQ0FvgQ&feature=related

Enjoy!


----------



## elder999

Ninjamom said:


> At the root, all three of these faiths (Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity-as-understood-by-me) are all monotheistic


 
Perhaps they are, now, depending on how one chooses to view the Trinity, saints, and the Virgin Mary, but not "at their roots."

At their roots, they're  polytheistic-by that I mean that prior to the council of Nicea, in 325 A.D., Christianity was easily polytheistic (so much so that there were arguments about it) and that Judaism had polytheistic elements prior to the rise of rabbinic orthodoxy, around 200 A.D.

The first Christians were Jews-yet they had no problem worshipping Jesus alongside "God the father." THey thought of Jesus as God's great angel-rmember, the church fathers of Nicea _*decided*_ that Jesus and God were "of one substance"- so these early christians thought of Jesus as exalted to the status of God's NAME angel at his resurrection. 

God's "NAME Angel?" THe early Jewish gnostics-part of the thinking that would evolve into kabbalism-believed that "God" manifested "God the creator" as a NAME angel, and it was this angel-separate from God but with God's power, that created the world.

There are 1st and 2nd century polemics about things like who is worshipping angels, who is asking angels for intercession-among both Jews and Christians. There are 3rd and 4th century polemics among Jews about what was called "the Two Powers" heresy, and then there was Nicea, and the argument abnout Jesus's substance-separate or same as God's.

My point is, early "Christianity" and Judaism were not monotheistic; they were, at best, monalotrous : they _believed_ in many gods, but worshipped only one.It's also interesting to note that in Genesis, the word used for "God" in Hebrew, _eloyhim_ is *plural*-this is why God speaks of "us" and "we"-not because he's royalty. Because of things like this, it was easy for Christianity to start as a movement within Judaism. This is what led to gnostic movements and the Sophia traditions, within Judaism and early Christianity, and what caused the rabbis to put their feet down and say that worship of YHWH was the only way, and insisting on all other forms of worship (within Judaism) be banned. Of course, that worked:Judaism, in its present form, is monotheistic, but even after the rise of rabbinic Judaism, we still find Jewish mystical texts that are very questionably monotheistic - see the treatment of Metatron (angel thought of as "the voice of God")in 3 Enoch, among other Hekhalot literature. (Some of the texts call him _Metatron YHWH_, after all). I sometimes think that it's only because of medieval rationalist philosophers like Maimonides that Judaism became truly monotheistic (and that's only if you focus on the rationalist tradition). The doctrine of the Sefirot in the medieval kabbalah is questionably monotheistic in the same way that the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is questionable.

How much one can say that Christianity is  monotheistic is wholly dependent upon how much one believes the decision by the Council of Nicea, and, the Doctrine of the Trinity actually worked. We can say, for example, that  certain Pentecostals have a Oneness belief, as opposed to a trinitarian belief, and believe everyone else to be polytheistic. There are also unitarians and modalists, and the Mormons believe that God is three separate beings with one purpose, but not the same substance. 

(BTW, Jarrod, you can find quite a few fascinating books on this stuff; it's nothing new: A good place to start would be  Alan Segal in _Two Powers in Heaven_ (1977), and Jarl Fossum in _The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord_ (1985) and _The Image of the Invisible God_ (1995). 

Lastly:Satan. While we can avoid  modern thought about Satan, he is often spoken of, thought of and written about as "the God of *this* world," or God of earthly things(2 Corinthians, 44)-and his "banishment," is likewise written of as not a banishment to "hell," but to the earth.


----------



## elder999

elder999 said:


> Lastly:Satan. While we can avoid modern thought about Satan, he is often spoken of, thought of and written about as "the God of *this* world," or God of earthly things(2 Corinthians, 44)-and his "banishment," is likewise written of as not a banishment to "hell," but to the earth.


 

That's 2 Corinthians 4*:4*: _In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. _

(That's what I get for typing so early!)

See also:"prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. , and "ruler of this world" in John 12:31.


----------



## jarrod

lot's of terrific information in those posts, elder, & well explained too.  thanks!


jf


----------



## elder999

jarrod said:


> lot's of terrific information in those posts, elder, & well explained too. thanks!
> 
> 
> jf


 

No sweat-I've got a lot of _*weird*_ hobbies-religion is one of them....:lol:


----------



## sjansen

jarrod said:


> that is a really, really good point that i hadn't thought of. let's take hinduism for example: sure there is vishnu, shiva, & brahma, but they are often spoken of as different aspects or manifestations of the same entity. now a shiva devotee might think vishnu is an avatar of shiva while a vishnu devotee might think the opposite, but they agree that they revere the same deity. yet hinduism is commonly accepted as a polytheistic religion.
> 
> jf


 
The funny thing is that if you talk to a hindu they may tell you their religion is also monotheistic. The other gods are just manifestations of Brahma. Buddism, Taoism, Shinto and Confusionism are not considered religions is some countries because there is no god. You can classify anything any way you want to, but all Christians, Jews and Muslims will tell you there is one god. Call him Yahweh, God or Allah if you want to.


----------



## Yoshiyahu

Where Did Christianity come from?

What I mean is what was Christianity before it went to Europe? There were believers in Yisrael and Africa before Europeans converted. So what was different than. I know believers in the messiah called their god Yahweh and the messia Yeshua and their religion was called "The Way" by them and the Pharisees called them Nazorenes!


But what made them different than todays Christianity?

For instance they may have not celebrated
Christmas Easter halloween
may have not had relics like statues,paintings and crosses
may have not prayed to saints and angels
many other things christians do today.

What do you think followers of The Way were like in contrast todays evolved Christianity?


----------



## jarrod

sjansen said:


> The funny thing is that if you talk to a hindu they may tell you their religion is also monotheistic. The other gods are just manifestations of Brahma. Buddism, Taoism, Shinto and Confusionism are not considered religions is some countries because there is no god. You can classify anything any way you want to, but all Christians, Jews and Muslims will tell you there is one god. Call him Yahweh, God or Allah if you want to.


 
for the most part i agree, but shinto has a pretty clearly defined pantheon of gods.  also while buddhism & taoism are not considered religions by some, those people are usually the educated elites.  if you look at those modes of thought at the popular level, you will still have prayers & devotionals to bodhisattvas & immortals, often asking for things like wealth, health, happiness, etc, just like many religions.  

jf


----------



## jarrod

Yoshiyahu said:


> Where Did Christianity come from?
> 
> What I mean is what was Christianity before it went to Europe? There were believers in Yisrael and Africa before Europeans converted. So what was different than. I know believers in the messiah called their god Yahweh and the messia Yeshua and their religion was called "The Way" by them and the Pharisees called them Nazorenes!
> 
> 
> But what made them different than todays Christianity?
> 
> For instance they may have not celebrated
> Christmas Easter halloween
> may have not had relics like statues,paintings and crosses
> may have not prayed to saints and angels
> many other things christians do today.
> 
> What do you think followers of The Way were like in contrast todays evolved Christianity?


 
as elder alluded to in a previous posts, christianity was an extremely varied system of belief prior to the council of nicea in 325AD.  in fact, i don't think it was intended to be spread outside of the jewish community until the gospel of luke was written sometime towards the end of the 1st century.  so i think non-jewish christians prior to nicea probably somewhat freely adapted the teachings of christianity based on a) what texts they had available to them & b) the influence of their indigenous culture.  

as far as differences between primitive christians & modern?  entire books have been writtten about it.  i think the most significant difference though is that they were not under the authority of any church hierarchy beyond that of their own community.  

jf


----------



## sjansen

jarrod said:


> for the most part i agree, but shinto has a pretty clearly defined pantheon of gods. also while buddhism & taoism are not considered religions by some, those people are usually the educated elites. if you look at those modes of thought at the popular level, you will still have prayers & devotionals to bodhisattvas & immortals, often asking for things like wealth, health, happiness, etc, just like many religions.
> 
> jf


 
I'm with ya about shinto due to the fact they worship the natural. But, some countries do not recognize these as gods. All religions including those without a defined god pray/meditate, whether it be to find enlightenment or such. I'm not saying that Buddism and Taoism are not religions. Just that the are not recognized as such to a lack of a defined source in god. Moslty these are from communist and theocracist countries.


----------

