Is Christianity truly a monotheistic religion?

[Immortal Goat]

I have read some very interesting theories about the Christian religions. If you believe that you are following a monotheistic religion, then you cannot believe in a devil that is a rival to your god. If it is a TRULY monotheistic religion, there can be NO rival to God, for that being would be a god themselves. If you insist on believing in demons and a Satan, then it is required that they are not rivals, but simply servants to a god that, far from being purely good, is simply neutral.

In the Bible, it is read that "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7) God's sun and rain pour on the good and evil alike and make both weeds and wheat grow.

So, does that sound like the typical Cristian belief in God? Didn't think so.

[Zhukov]

Are there any other religions that you like to bash?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

He hates those fucking Druids, too...goddamned shrub fuckers....

[mburbank]

I'll tell you what;

Zoroastrians suck ass.

Manicheans? Buncha two faced fucks.

[Immortal Goat]

If you are wondering why I seem preoccupied with the Christian religion, it is because I try to make arguments about things I know stuff about. Unlike some people on this site, I usually try to make my opinions known only if I at least think I know what I am talking about.

[FS]

WE'LL HAVE CHRISTIANITY DISPROVED BY SUNDOWN :picklehat

[mburbank]

Is that a belief your beliefs led you to believe, or do you just believe believing leads to beliefs you believe are like that?

[kahljorn]

And unlike you I tend to talk out of my ass :(

[El Blanco]

We don't see the devil as God's equal. They are not on the same level. God is clearly superior. Lucifer is a fallen angel who used his free will to defy God. He promptly got his ass whooped.

Believing there is a being out there who is more powerful than us does not mean that we believe that being is another god.

Its like saying that the guy at the basketball court down the block is as good as Tracy McGrady. He might be better than you or I, but he is nowhere near McGrady's status.

[O71394658]

The Devil is not a rival. He exists because it is God's will that he exists. If you would argue that he is "neutral" by perpetuating evil and allowing it to exist, then so be it. But first, let's examine the entirety of the Biblical quote you used:

"I am the Lord and there is no other, there is no God besides me. It is I who arm you, though you know me not, so that toward the rising and the setting of the Sun men may know that there is no one besides me. I am the Lord there is no other; I form the light and create the darkness, I make well-being and create woe. I, the Lord, do all these things. Let justice descend, O heavens, like dew from above, like gentle rain let teh skies drop it down. Let the earth open and salvation bud forth; let justice also spring up! I, the Lord, have created this." (Isaiah 45: 5-8)

As you can see, it's almost comical how the author of the "theory" you propose would take such a quote to disprove the monotheistic qualities of God, yet God actually "addresses" the point in the previous sentence. Yet another Biblical quote taken out of context.

The basic will of God is well known throughout the world. Words like "good", "loving", "saving", and "forgiving" come to mind, but what most people leave out is "just". Justice is one of the ultimate facets of God that people so willingly ignore. Yes, God is caring and loving, but he is also just. I think it's obvious that he has power over evil. Satan is not his rival, nor his equal. If you wish to say so, he can even be called an "instrument of God" as he is even under His power. Yes, God allows evil to exist. Why does he do this? To tell you the truth, I believe it falls under the premise of justice. "Free will". We're given a choice to follow a distinct and set path in life. The choice is yours. God gives us the choice. He allows evil to exist because it is an instrument that people may use in exercising their free will.

If you want a more information on this, I'll post it later, but I'm tired of typing right now. :)

[Baalzamon]

God gives us the choice. He allows evil to exist because it is an instrument that people may use in exercising their free will.


Thats a very good way of saying it, and I see a lot of people overlook that.

I would however take issue with the idea that evil is a tool of god used in the name of justice.

Evil stems from people utilizing their free will, and so does good. God does not actively dish out justice for evil deeds or rewards for good, at least not in this life anyway.

At any rate the only responsibility god has for either good or evil is only in the act of creating us able to do both. The actual act of good or evil comes from man, not from god or the devil.

I personally dont believe in a god, but if there is a god this is the way I would interpret his role in the universe.

In the end it all comes down to us and the choices we make, and whether there is a god or not, we will never get it right untill we accept the responsibility for our own actions. God didn't make you do it, neither did the "devil", YOU made yourself do it.

Maybe god is sitting back waiting for the day when we take responsibility for ourselves. Maybe he doesnt want us to constantly ask him to do good, to punish evil and redeem us.


Maybe gods entire purpose in giving us free will is for us to learn to stand on our own two feet and stop attributing everything to him when its really our own actions that are to blame.

Maybe we should be earning our redemption instead of asking for it for free.

[Vibecrewangel]

Mr. NumberGuy -

Nice. :) I've always thought of Satan as an employee of the All Mighty.


I have a question on the issue of Free Will. Doesn't it seem contradictory to give people free will and then essentially demand certain things of them? These ideas are mutually exclusive in this case.
It seems to me that if we were truly given free will then in the end each of us would be judged according to our choices and our reward or punishment would fit what we chose to do during our lives.
Believe in Me or you won't get into Heaven really doesn't give you Free Will.

[mburbank]

Sure it does! Eternal Damnation is a choice!

When I was growing up, my Dad said I always had two choices. Take it or Leave it.

On the other hand, he also said God's message was "Kill everyone different than you."

[El Blanco]

Actions have consequences. You can't expect to defy God and then have him welcome you into His home.

If I tell you to go fuck yourself repeatedly, are you going to invite me to dinner?

[Immortal Goat]

No, but you are not a supposedly "eternally loving God", so therefor, you cannot possibly make assumptions about what are the criteria to be in the state of Heaven.

[Jeanette X]

Most of the things I've read regarding Christianity not being monotheistic concern the Trinity, not Satan.

[Vibecrewangel]

id / ego /super-ego

body / mind / soul or spirit

me / myself / I

[El Blanco]

No, but you are not a supposedly "eternally loving God", so therefor, you cannot possibly make assumptions about what are the criteria to be in the state of Heaven.

I'm not trying to say who is and who isn't goign to Heaven. I'm just saying there is a line of reasoning here.

I don't have all the answers and don't pretend to.

Most of the things I've read regarding Christianity not being monotheistic concern the Trinity, not Satan.

How so? 3 people 1 God.

[Jeanette X]

Its kind of like saying that Hinduism is monotheistic because all of their gods are merely aspects of the divine, including Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu.

[Rev. Danno]

Just because you wear a guy nailed to a peice of wood around your neck doesn't mean that you belive in the holy trinity does it?
I thought that was just a Catholic thing...
But then again what do I know about Christianity...
(it's funny because I'm a minister, but I'm also a semi-practicing Jew)

[Vibecrewangel]

I have been pondering this one as of late and I have my own theory, but as my knowledge of the Bible is limited my theory may be missing some key pieces.

What does it mean that God created us in his image?

[O71394658]

Its kind of like saying that Hinduism is monotheistic because all of their gods are merely aspects of the divine, including Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu.

Those gods are three distinct entities representing three different facets of the religion. Saying that it's monotheism is lame, as they're recognized to have their own personalities and actions that worshipers attribute to them.

The Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three different manifestations of the same entity. The Hindus believe in three completely different beings in and of themselves, in which there is one manifestation concerning each God, not the same entity represented in three forms (as per Christianity).

[Jeanette X]

Those gods are three distinct entities representing three different facets of the religion. Saying that it's monotheism is lame, as they're recognized to have their own personalities and actions that worshipers attribute to them.
But same goes for the Trinity!

The Hindus believe in three completely different beings in and of themselves, in which there is one manifestation concerning each God, not the same entity represented in three forms (as per Christianity).
From what I understand, the Big Three in Hinduism are simply manifestations of the same divine essence. I'd better go look it up. :/

[Supafly345]

What does it mean that God created us in his image?
As is almost everything else in the Bible, it has a literal meaning. God didn't make dogs, or carrots in his image. We have his appearance I guess. We are his favorite of all his creations it reads.

I am still a skeptic on the Bible. So far in my studies I can't prove or disprove any of it.

[El Blanco]

I don't think it was meant in a physical sense. I think it was meant to mean we can evolve to God's level.

[Perndog]

But in Genesis it says God doesn't want us to be like him - Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because that is exactly the thing that made us like God. And if we needed that to be like God, us being created in his image (before eating from the tree) can't have meant we were created to think like he did.

[Supafly345]

I don't think it was meant in a physical sense. I think it was meant to mean we can evolve to God's level.Ah, you must be mormon.
It said image, it meant image. Image doesn't mean "eventually be little gods" (which is blasphamas). It means he stands upright, has two arms and two legs, and so he made us.
Note, if you are a little confused, in the Bible many people got to see god with their own eyes on earth, some even touched him. He was called Jesus at this time. I am pretty sure he had a normal human body.
But in Genesis it says God doesn't want us to be like him - Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because that is exactly the thing that made us like God. And if we needed that to be like God, us being created in his image (before eating from the tree) can't have meant we were created to think like he did.Almost. The Tree of All Knowledge (its "all knowledge") just gave us the knowledge of God. It didn't give us God's abilities.

[Perndog]

I don't think there's much mention in the Bible of Jesus actually being God. If he were, one would think he would have been called God all his adult life instead of the son of, and would not have said "Father, why have you forsaken me," while he was dying. The whole "Jesus is God" deal was set in stone by a Catholic Church council several centuries later, not by the Bible or by the very early Christians.

[Supafly345]

People want to blame everything that they want to remove from christianity on the catholics. The catholics made up many things, but not this.

In the book of John it explains what God is. You know... in the begining there was the word, blah blah blah... the word was God, blah blah blah...
In it eventually it says "and the word became flesh." As in God became Jesus. Jesus also says one time in the Bible "if you have seen me you have seen the Father."
The Bible also is very clear that God is the only one who can raise the dead. When Jesus came back from the dead though he said that he rose himself.
There are several other places that say they are the same. But I don't want to go find them.

[kahljorn]

"The holy trinity"

Jesus also says we are all the son's and daughters of God. JUST WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ;)

[Supafly345]

INSCEST IS BAD

[El Blanco]

Ah, you must be mormon.

Actually, Roman Catholic.

It said image, it meant image.

Is that what the ancient Hebrew said? What about the Greek and Aramaic?

It means he stands upright, has two arms and two legs, and so he made us.

Does that mean he has an a appendix and a tailbone?

Note, if you are a little confused, in the Bible many people got to see god with their own eyes on earth, some even touched him. He was called Jesus at this time. I am pretty sure he had a normal human body.

Well, ya. That part I know. He manifested Himself as human so we could see He knows about our lives and our sufferings and that its possible for an ordinary joe to go to heaven.

[FS]

But in Genesis it says God doesn't want us to be like him - Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because that is exactly the thing that made us like God. And if we needed that to be like God, us being created in his image (before eating from the tree) can't have meant we were created to think like he did.

But maybe God's plan was for people to get there on their own, not by eating the magical fruit and becoming God-like without having learnt anything.

Something that confuses me is when people say Jesus and God are basically one and the same. If I remember correctly, Jesus has multiple conversations with God in the Bible and even begs him to save Jesus from crucifixion. To me that sounds more like God picked a human to-be-born and gave him the necessary knowledge to qualify as the son of God. The Holy Ghost, for that matter, always seemed to me more like a special kind of angel. The concept of the Trinity confuses me.

[Perndog]

That's what I thought. FS says it better than I do. :(

[O71394658]

There is nothing magical, powerful, or special associated with the Tree of Knowledge.

It was merely a test imposed by God.

[Perndog]

Au contraire. After they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, they were suddenly aware of their nakedness and became ashamed and covered themselves.

[O71394658]

Au contraire

Aha. The tree itself was nothing special, but the consequences of eating from it are. I will explain:

In eating the fruit of the tree, Adam and Eve had sinned against God, in disobeying his word, correct? Thus the passage has often been interpreted as saying that since they sinned against God by eating the fruit of the tree, they became fully aware of their sin, and wanted to hide from each other, and against God, thus the feeling to clothe themselves. They thought it would bring them some protection, either physically or metaphorically in protection. As this probably sounds confusing as hell, I will further elaborate- Many would argue that in the fact that they were ashamed of their nudity because they had sinned. Once they sinned against God, their senses of morality became clearly defined. Morality exists to the point that we feel the obligation to cover ourselves in the presence of other people. They intrinsically became aware of what was good and evil, and found that in sinning, they lost their innocence, and could thus be seen as sexual objects towards each other...thus the need to cover themselves.

I've probably confused the hell out of you there (NPI).

[Perndog]

That would be why God called it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because it gave them the knowledge of good and evil, the knowledge that nudity was (supposedly) a bad thing. Why does so much symbolism need to be read into it when the passage is so explicit that a literal interpretation serves exactly the same purpose?

Furthermore, if it's a matter of interpretation alone, you are no more likely to be right than I am, no matter what precedence or any theological authority has to say. Regardless of what's happened since it was written, we're all reading the same book, and we are all intelligent enough to come up with equally viable explanations.

EDIT: Oh, and one last thing, the source of the "tree's fruit makes us like God" deal:

Genesis 3:22 And God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

[O71394658]

Knowledge of sin doesn't equal the knowledge of God. I addressed the topic in an attempt to show that eating the fruit did not equate to undertanding, equality, or evolution to God's level. :/

But yes, you would be right sir. :posh

[Supafly345]

Perndog is right. That is what it says. Not what you believed it meant. The Tree of All Knowledge did contain the knowledge of God. And I am pretty damn sure he knew what sin was.
When it says the Tree of All Knowledge it was actually talking about all knowledge. That includes sin, obediance, weather patterns, breeding patterns of the afircan spotted treeslug, ect..

No, we would not be able to become like God. You are right about this. We would not be able to change the directions of the winds or the lifespan of a giraffe. But it did contain how to sin.
Concerning nudity: no, it is not neccesarily a sin. But Adam and Eve learned shame. And they believed they had to cloth themselves.

And now for a good segway into my next point:
Is that what the ancient Hebrew said? What about the Greek and Aramaic?Yes. He said image in Hebrew version. The Hebrew version was the original version of the Old Testament. The Greek version was the original version of the New Testament (that is the version I read).
Aramaic is irrelavent.
Other than Revelations, everything is to be taken literally in the Bible. There is no symbolic meaning to the story of the garden of Eden. The Hebrew people were very literal scholors. They didn't write deep works of liturature that left you to make your own conclusion of what it symbolized. It is still up to you on what the meaning, or lesson is behind all them is of course.

You really just need to read it for yourself.

I am not saying the Bible is true or it is not true. Just what it says.

*straying from post*
Does that mean he has an a appendix and a tailbone
You are saying that Jesus didn't have an appendix or a tailbone?
Jesus has existed all along. The three have always been. God didn't just multiply like an amoeba (no childish jokes please).

[O71394658]

Perndog is right. That is what it says. Not what you believed it meant. The Tree of All Knowledge did contain the knowledge of God. And I am pretty damn sure he knew what sin was.
When it says the Tree of All Knowledge it was actually talking about all knowledge. That includes sin, obediance, weather patterns, breeding patterns of the afircan spotted treeslug, ect

Bullshit. The fruit gave them nothing. I was agreeing with Pern in the sense that they came to know good and evil through the tree, but it wasn't the tree itself that gave them the knowledge, it was the act of disobeying God. By disobeying God, they came to know sin, not by eating a magical fruit.

[Perndog]

It was just a fairytale anyway. :rolleyes

[Supafly345]

If you say so 44.
I wonder if that was another punishment of God's? Make sure that all objects in the Bible were metaphorical so no one would understand it.

I guess my father was wrong about the Tree then. Next time he is over I will tell him what a horrible Pastor he is because of this completely wrong meaning of the Tree he told me.

[Emu]

Perndog is right. That is what it says. Not what you believed it meant. The Tree of All Knowledge did contain the knowledge of God. And I am pretty damn sure he knew what sin was.
When it says the Tree of All Knowledge it was actually talking about all knowledge. That includes sin, obediance, weather patterns, breeding patterns of the afircan spotted treeslug, ect

Bullshit. The fruit gave them nothing. I was agreeing with Pern in the sense that they came to know good and evil through the tree, but it wasn't the tree itself that gave them the knowledge, it was the act of disobeying God. By disobeying God, they came to know sin, not by eating a magical fruit.

I have a question, here. Adam and Eve obviously didn't--COULDN'T know the difference between right and wrong, because only God possessed that information, right? How does God justify tempting them with the tree at all and expecting them not to eat it?

And don't give me any crap about Satan tempting them to eat it. If God really didn't want them to eat it, he wouldn't've put it in the Garden. He would've put it out of their reach, like any good parent.

[kahljorn]

"But maybe God's plan was for people to get there on their own, not by eating the magical fruit and becoming God-like without having learnt anything."

What if God came from another civilization horribly advanced beyond our imaginations. What if he had seen them occure before? Or maybe the omniscient shit plays a part here.

"Genesis 3:22 And God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."

Would seem to support the civilization aspect.

[O71394658]

I have a question, here. Adam and Eve obviously didn't--COULDN'T know the difference between right and wrong, because only God possessed that information, right? How does God justify tempting them with the tree at all and expecting them not to eat it?

And don't give me any crap about Satan tempting them to eat it. If God really didn't want them to eat it, he wouldn't've put it in the Garden. He would've put it out of their reach, like any good parent.

Ask Him yourself. You're asking me what God thought concerning an issue. As I'm not God, I can't fully answer that. Of course we're often times able to discern meanings out of Biblical references and context clues (concerning those describing God in terms of human capacity and emotion). Maybe tomorrow when I'm fully awake I'll be able to think clearly, but as of right now, I don't have a good answer for ya.

I guess my father was wrong about the Tree then. Next time he is over I will tell him what a horrible Pastor he is because of this completely wrong meaning of the Tree he told me.


Be my guest. I don't care. I just don't pounce on the fact that God has "special apples" that make you know everything. Maybe you should ask him again. Bible passages face many different interpretations. Just because I may not read it as the "oh-so-enlightened" kid's pastor-father doesn't warrant that I'm wrong.

[Vibecrewangel]

Okay...so say the actual translation is "image"
Then, what did the word me when it was used (in this context) in it's original language?

For example.....a modern example.....
The word honor in no way encompases what it means in Japanese. Dishonor has the same problem. The word shame is a much close aproximation as it generally tends to mean more in English than dishonor does.

Another example....

At the end of Akira, in the Japanese version with English subtitles, he nearly whispers something in Japanese the subtitle says "I am Akira" (powerful)
In the English dubbed version he yells "I AM AKIRA"

(Personally I think the voice of God would be a whisper.....but I digress)
(I also think that if there is a God, when it became self aware and spoke it's name we/everything began to exist. We/everything are God's self awareness. That's why we are trying to figure things out. Because so is God....but I digress even further)

English tends to strip the depth and meaning out of words when translated.

Not to mention...English doesn't have a natural rhythm.

[Perndog]

But English does give you 40 synonyms for every word, so at least there's a lot of room for creativity. ;)

[Abcdxxxx]

Well it's no wonder some Jews regarded the Apostles as cultists with this interpretation. If the Hebrew bible wasn't symbolic then how'd we end up with the Talmud or the Haftorah? Translation is everything. The Hebrew version uses several words in place of god, and then a whole other list of words that aren't even written, that we are supposed to say in place of the words that are written...and none of them refer to Jesus. Meanwhile, most First Testaments published in the US break that rule, and have the word God all over the place, often refering to god as a "he" when the word was never gender specific. So apparently interpration means a lot, and it's true, there are several meanings for words, and some of these meanings change over time. When you're speaking of Hebrew, it's not just the meanings that are important, but the gender tense as well. I don't recall the Hebrew Bible talking about Jews in the image of god...rather it's the idea that we are all made up of god, because god is all encompassing, that is preached. We're not supposed to strive to be god like, but we are supposed to appreciate the value of our godly worth. See the difference?


Supafly - "Yes. He said image in Hebrew version. The Hebrew version was the original version of the Old Testament. The Greek version was the original version of the New Testament (that is the version I read).
Aramaic is irrelavent.
Other than Revelations, everything is to be taken literally in the Bible. There is no symbolic meaning to the story of the garden of Eden. The Hebrew people were very literal scholors. They didn't write deep works of liturature that left you to make your own conclusion of what it symbolized. It is still up to you on what the meaning, or lesson is behind all them is of course. "

[Supafly345]

Hey, I said Hebrew version, not translation. The first translation was the King James version. And it was tampered with. The Hebrew version (english translation) is very complete.
I have never read the Hebrew version myself. But what I have come to understand is that even the english translation corrects all of the changes that were made in the KJV (many of which were deliberately made by King James himself). God was used to replace the words (I will spell how they sound since I don't know how they are really spelled) "Yahwey" and "Jehova". And it is also very true that the name "Jesus" was never used in the original Hebrew Bible. The reason for that is because the original Hebrew Bible never has Jesus in it, as it was just the Old Testement. The New Testement was originally written in Greek, and not Hebrew.
The Greek version of the Old Testement (english translation) I have read some of. It showed many many changes in it. These included geographical locations, names, types of animals, and descriptions. Recent translations are much more accurate. Because the newer translations have been using even more ancient of manuscripts to write it with.

See, it wasn't as much of a matter of translation to be blamed, but who translated it. Things weren't improperly translated, they were changed. And the changed versions of these Bibles are the very one's that are in popular circulation today and broke off into all the other versions after it.
No, it doesn't say Jews were made in the image of God. Unless Jew means "human" there really is no reason why it should. Or why this was even mentioned. What makes Man special, what gives us the most "Godly worth" is that God made us with his own hands. As opposed to the rest of creation where he mearly spoke. I suppose in a way we are made from God since he made created the universe from nothing. And us from that universe. Now I am not going to be presumptious as to say I know what our purpose is, especially since I am not fully sure of what I believe.


Remember! Nothing I say is fact! And I am not saying that my word is gold!

[kahljorn]

"We/everything are God's self awareness"

Cooli Fooli. I disagree on part of the "Trying to figure things out" part, though. Seems to prickly pie, Indicates there is something to figure out, indicating an end to conceptual usefulness in that fashion, which may very well be the dark truth of our trusts-- a final shot and a final breath?
I tend to imagine we are more the summary of omniscience and thus slowly steer the evolutionary curve of the universal flow and algorithm. A certain esoteric, it is true. A combined echelon of our thoughts reaps universal rebirth when the arcitecture of the structure crumbles into itself embracing the need to reestablish foreign looms for carpet and tile.

[Vibecrewangel]

But if there are infinite aspects to figure out then the search will go on.....well.....infinately.
Which I think would be fairly close to your evolutionary curve idea.

[kellychaos]

Mr. NumberGuy -

Nice. :) I've always thought of Satan as an employee of the All Mighty.


Vibe,

Have you ever read the Incantations Of Immortality series by Pier Anthony? It describes the abstract concepts like Death, Time, War, Satan, ect as part of a huge staffed bureaucracy and shows through a kind of fantasy/parody how each came to their job and what that job is.

[Vibecrewangel]

As usual I haven't :(

Though it has been added to the ever growing reading list.......

I think you have been the biggest contributor to that list lately. :P

[Abcdxxxx]

Supafly - What are you talking about? Every Torah is the same. To the dot. Hand copied from one original Torah on to big rolls of fresh lambs skin paper. Every Torah is an exact duplicate. The only time you will ever see changes is in a translation.

"Hebrew version" means it's in the language of Ancient Hebrew.... meaning it has to be translated even amongst those who speak fluent Hebrew. There are words, and accent marks that only appear in the Torah. The ideas and meaning behind the words themselves are also open to translation. None of these correct the King James version...because it's just a pre-existing version, so there's nothing to correct. King James didn't have any effect on the bible that Jews use.

Of course it matters who translates it... but there isn't a Yeshiva in the world that can study the bible without some form of "translation"...and that's reading it directly from the Hebrew itself. I've read it in Hebrew, and I can tell you that when I read it in English, or you read it in Greek, it's not the same. Language differences are huge.

[kahljorn]

"But if there are infinite aspects to figure out then the search will go on.....well.....infinately.
Which I think would be fairly close to your evolutionary curve idea."

That would destroy the purpose of the curve. The curve would effect current ideas and conceptions as well, whilst the curve would be designated by the eccentric and insane. As intrum omni times would congregate together. They would peekish eachother, otherwise it wouldnt be paradoxical enough to fit. There has to be the factor of friccccction.

Flim to the flam! I don't like the word "God".

[Supafly345]

Abcdxxxx- I have not read the Torah for I am not an Orthidox Jew. I'm not a Jew at all for that matter. I know that the Jewish people believe that it is important to read the original translation, but I do not. But I will believe everything you say about it. (Just don't go on and on about your belief system and expect me to know what you are talking about.) After reading through everything you have said I am pretty sure that my personal position is not too terribly far off from mine though (If you exclude the obvious one's of course).

Let me comment about your thinking that every Torah is exactly the same though: Yes, you are right about that, today maybe. But when all there was to tranfer with was the lambskin and ink human error was destined to alter it. Alter it many times. Someone misses a word, so the next person fills it in. A mistake with spelling could be one of a few words. Soooo, the closer you get down the line to the original copy you get, the more accurate your book becomes. And the Old Testement (Torah) didn't come as one large work. No, it was put together from many different one's, and that leaves even more room for faulties. You really can't deny this (we mess things up). I am sure it is very accurate today though.

You are right about translation mix ups. But I have always been referring to the Bible. You seem to keep thinking I am talking about the Torah. I have never read the Greek version of the Torah or the Old Testement. The Greek version of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint. The Greek version of the new Testement is simply called "The Greek Bible." So when I talk about the Greek Bible that is what I have been talking about. I personally think that in today the New Testament is much more important than the Old. But I may seek to read the Torah someday now if I feel the urge to go through that much trouble.

I love to learn different perpectives of the same view though. But what we both seem to be saying is that older is better. I would like to talk about the Torah with you sometime in a easier setting.

[kahljorn]

In my opinion the "Torah Portion" of the bible is the only part worth reading, the rest is full of pretentious assholes and brown-nosers.

[kellychaos]

In the Bible, it is read that "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7) God's sun and rain pour on the good and evil alike and make both weeds and wheat grow.

So, does that sound like the typical Cristian belief in God? Didn't think so.

I think that what this passage is getting is that opposites are necessary to define each other. Example: black/white, good/evil, God/Devil. Moreover, not only does Satan define what God is (i.e. everything Satan is NOT), Satan is necessary to complete the whole. An interesting dichotomy but not monotheism I don't think.

[Abcdxxxx]

a) the torah, and the bible are the same thing. the collected volumes of the five books of moses.

b) you don't have to be an orthodox jew to read the torah

c) torah's are duplicated the same way fine art work in a museum is duplicated. by hand, slowly. they take a looong time to make. a mistake means starting over and discarding the work. you have to be a scholarly rabbi to copy a torah. they cost $15,000-$20,000 for a new one. many of the torahs in use are actually centuries old. there is no difference between the text of an ancient torah or a modern torah.

d) I haven't said anything about my belief systems, but thanks for the warning. maybe you should stop talking about "beliefs systems" yourself since you're doing such a botched job of it.

e) the additions to the torah are called the talmud, and the midrash, and they contain the various addendums, and oral add ons you mentioned. the actual torah hasn't changed over time.

e) I'm going to assume there's a language barrier here (speaking of translations) because you sound really mixed up.

[Supafly345]

a) Again, I am not Jewish. So I don't know anything about it.

2) I do not know that much about the Torah either as I said. But I do know that that Torah is just the Old Testement. Meaning it is part of the Bible, not the same thing as the Bible. I did explain this several times. Some people believe that the Bible is just the Old Testement, and I am not going to tell them that they are wrong, but I don't believe this myself.

g) I apologise if I assumed that the belief systems that you talked about were not your own.

a) I know you don't need to be Oridox Jewish to read the Torah, that is why I said I would like to myself.

green) So are you Jewish or what?

[Perndog]

1) There is no Satan in the parts of the Old Testament where God is described; therefore, Satan is not required to define God.

2) There is no God in Satanic literature; therefore, God is not required to define Satan.

Any more bright ideas?

[Abcdxxxx]

that that Torah is just the Old Testement. Meaning it is part of the Bible, not the same thing as the Bible..... Some people believe that the Bible is just the Old Testement

But I have always been referring to the Bible. You seem to keep thinking I am talking about the Torah.



I *think* you're trying to say that the Torah/Old Testament is only part of the King James version of the Bible, right?

Otherwise, like I said, the Torah, and the Old Testament are the same thing. When you're talking about the Old Testament, you are in fact talking about the Torah. I'm sure I misunderstood you or something, but people are easily confused by this, so I like to clarify things.

[Supafly345]

But I thought you said that because of the translation mishaps, the Torah was wildly different from the KJV Old Testament. Or are you retracting all of that? I was just going along with what you said.

Pretty much your last post was what I have been saying this whole time. Please read the whole of posts before you comment on them. You are making plain dumb arguments about your misunderstandings and other irrelovent things now, and I don't play those games.

[kellychaos]

1) There is no Satan in the parts of the Old Testament where God is described; therefore, Satan is not required to define God.

2) There is no God in Satanic literature; therefore, God is not required to define Satan.

Any more bright ideas?

I don't care what's in the Bible. Think logically. Could you define all that IS without the idea of nothingness? Coud you describe hot without cold? No. In both cases, certain sensory data (or lack or it) is needed to serve as a measuring stick, so to speak. The same can and has been said of metaphysical and religious principles by leading religious philosophers throughout history. A basis of comparison, or starting point if you prefer is needed. Of course, one could say that the definitition of God lies in the metaphysical and, as such, is beyond human language and understanding but then that defeats the purpose of having a definition in the human sense of the word anyway, doesn't it? It's the same principle and it isn't necessary to say so in print.

[Big Papa Goat]

1) There is no Satan in the parts of the Old Testament where God is described; therefore, Satan is not required to define God.
Doesn't Satan make an appearance in the book of Job?

[Abcdxxxx]

Supa - H'bout the translation mishaps in this fucking thread?
I like how you go back and fix your posts so they make sense two days after someone responds.

The Hebrew Bible a.k.a The Torah a.k.a The Old Testament a.k.a the Jewish Bible are all the same thing. They are not the same as the translated version that is known as the King James Version a.k.a. The New Tetstament a.k.a The Christian Bible.

Enough.

[Perndog]

I don't care what's in the Bible. Think logically. Could you define all that IS without the idea of nothingness? Coud you describe hot without cold? No. In both cases, certain sensory data (or lack or it) is needed to serve as a measuring stick, so to speak. The same can and has been said of metaphysical and religious principles by leading religious philosophers throughout history. A basis of comparison, or starting point if you prefer is needed. Of course, one could say that the definitition of God lies in the metaphysical and, as such, is beyond human language and understanding but then that defeats the purpose of having a definition in the human sense of the word anyway, doesn't it? It's the same principle and it isn't necessary to say so in print.

Can you describe hot without cold? Can you describe the feeling of hot or cold at all without a circular definition? I know you can feel hot without cold; you can tell the difference between hot and warm, and they're not opposites.

And you missed my point. Since Satan isn't mentioned in any of the passages where God is described, it is possible and quite easy to conceive of God without any opposite; your bases of comparison are humans, who are not evil but are simply less good than God.

[Supafly345]

I am sorry!! It is just too funny not to reply to!
-Supa
I like how you go back and fix your posts so they make sense two days after someone responds.
Hahahaha, if this excuse to explain your oversight is what you want to believe, keep telling yourself that. :lol
"Oh my goodness! When did his posts start making sense? Did I...? Noooo, I am right about everything all the time! He must have CHANGED them! Yeah, thats it. Ooooh... I will get him back by confusing him more by changing what the Bible is YET again!"
I really woulden't put that much effort into something that stupid. Dishonesty isn't my bag.

::bites lip:: And I cannot believe you actually said this:
The Hebrew Bible a.k.a The Torah a.k.a The Old Testament a.k.a the Jewish Bible are all the same thing. They are not the same as the translated version that is known as the King James Version a.k.a. The New Tetstament a.k.a The Christian Bible. Baaahahahahaha!!!!
I would either have to had never read the Bible ever, or just plain blind to believe this. Holy shit dude, I really hope you are kidding about this. Or this would be a very, very sad situation.
The Old Testament is in the Christian Bible, unless I was being given fake Bibles to read all my life. The New Testament is placed right after the Old Testament.
And I am really praying that you didn't mean that the New Testament was translated from the Old Testament. If you want to know why this doesn't make sense, then actually read my past posts to you. (I promise I didn't change them :) )

I know that you will only read every 5th word of this and probably think I am talking about Jesus actually being Russian or something. But I still had to respond, it was hard not to!

[Abcdxxxx]

I've read the bible in hebrew, and the King James version of the five books of Moses in English... and no, they're not exactly the same.

[kahljorn]

Aren't hot and cold irrelevant terms, meaningful to nothing? There is a global reminder to be reminded of, it's not the fact that they are hot or cold, it's that you can feel the hot or cold. Hot and cold are perceptual, a polar bear's hot and cold are different than ours. Measuring blenders with coffee cup noodles?

[kellychaos]

And you missed my point. Since Satan isn't mentioned in any of the passages where God is described, it is possible and quite easy to conceive of God without any opposite; your bases of comparison are humans, who are not evil but are simply less good than God.

Is it fair to compare the idealistic good and evil (God and Satan) in the metaphysical to what we can sense and judge empirically (i.e. humankind)? Abstractions to realities? My original point was that Satan was not so much a different and opposing God (creating a polytheism) but that he was an aspect of God which complements the whole. You DO make some interesting points of morality, though, as far as the "measuring stick" idea goes. Such as, "Why are some things considered evil in some societies while not in others?". Is it fair to judge those societies using OUR measuring system. Anyway, I have to refine/clarify my position and get back to you. This thread's taking an interesting turn.