Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Well, I guess we each have our own hopes for heaven.
How many Gods are there in the Bible?
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
Well, I guess we each have our own hopes for heaven.
Okinrus, you seem to be trying to plam off text in the bible as being a 'fault' on the part of the humans. Surely one must point out that many of these parts as depicted are actually 'voiced' by god. As an example:
Exodus 34:14 Then the lord said.... Do not worship any other god, for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.
In this instance it is god himself who is telling the ancient shepherd folk, that he is a jealous being. This god of yours even went so far as to use the word jealous twice in one sentence just to clarify his position.
I've been told time and time again that although humans can make mistakes, the word of god is the word of god. If it isn't the word of god then it's completely fucking pointless wouldn't you say?
Realize that this, as in most other cases, was a dialogue with a context:
Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
"The jealousy of Yhwh was germinal of His unity; and the simplicity and austerity of His original desert worship form the basis of the moralization of the later theology." - JewishEncyclopedia: God.
It plays both ways. The word of God, and the understanding of the audience. Both modes are described in the Bible, not just one. But a conclusion is also reached - and therefore you'll find a progressive theology in the Bible. Half a dialogue cannot be called the "complete". And no understanding of God can be sufficient outside a relationship with Him.
Which knowledge would be more complete in the end: knowing somebody, or getting to know somebody?
It's only pointless if humans don't learn from their mistakes and still think they are hearing (or reading) the complete Word of God. The Bible is hardly without it's share of people making mistakes and repenting from them. But when God answers there is no mistake. Once a misconceptions has been rectified, it's not a "fault" anymore, is it? Once again, the Word of God is not a one-sided conversation.
The only time your objection might have carried any weight is if such a "fault" remained uncorrected in the Bible. For instance if God said He was One God and his people continued believing their were more than one. Or if God said He was a jealous God and the Bible continued presenting other gods as valid options.
Last edited:
Before we fly off the hook, let's back up a little.
In the minds of many people, this god is real and the bible is a real account of god's activities.
For now let's just pretend this god being does exist. Ok?
A book, (bible), was written about him and his way of treating humans. Now we must establish a base here. We have two options:
1) He didn't tell these people anything, they just wrote a book on what they thought and felt or...
2) this god being dictated it to them. (especially the parts where god himself is doing the speaking).
If it is number 2 then god is clearly saying he's a jealous being and wanted man to write that fact, or if it's 1, then it's just a man's opinion and is technically completely worthless in the grand scheme of things.....
"Learning from mistakes..." is completely irrelevant to the point.
Completely irrelevant to my post.
Is it god answering or is it man just writing what they think? That's the point. If it's just man making an assumption, or writing based on the evidence they have it is generally worthless. Let us not forget these people knew a whole lot less about the planet/etc than we do now.
They feel an earthquake. They have to attribute it to something. They know nothing about tectonic plates. "It's an invisible guy who's angry."
The only assurance you can get is if god told them he was doing it.
Anyway, back to my point:
The bible says god said "i am jealous god etc etc". Either he did, or he didn't. Which is it?
Completely irrelevant..... to anything.
Eh? What are you chatting about?
Let's recap (simple version 1.0)
Okinrus made an excuse: "If we were to try to explain God, we would have to explain him using human language."
Much that using an excuse such as god and humans having a language barrier is a tad pathetic, i simply posed the question that either god did say what it says he said, or he didn't.
In the cases where god himself speaks such as "I your god..." etc, i ask the question of whether he did say that, or the language barrier has left us with something he didn't say, which ultimately makes it "fucking pointless". The bible says 'I am a jealous god', but maybe he was actually saying 'anyone wanna pint of beer' - unless he actually said what it says he said, in which case okinrus's excuse goes down the toilet.
Understand??
P.S Sorry, i ignored your first portion of text. Once more, it was completely irrelevant.
God is jealous in regard to "other gods". The words could not have been intended any other way, or understood any other way. God provided the words, the author recorded them context.
By the way, it's your opinion that it's worthless if it's just a man's opinion. What prevents a man from expressing an opinion that agrees with God's opinion? The Prophets were speaking in God's spirit (the Holy Spirit), and their opinion was for all intents and purposes also God's. But even they were measured by the course of events. And it is their history we read about in the Biblical books of the prophets.
Not if these mistakes provide the background by which God's pronouncements are made and understood. As such they are in God's Word and for part of God's word, even though they are not directly God's words.
It's all of these things. When you take note of any kind of knowledge, the content is always bound up in a package. The author is never "just" making an assumption, because the assumption will either be exposed as valid or not. The evidence is the experience of it all - the understanding that developes from taking in the whole spectrum of it. So their validity or authority is not based (or limited) to their understanding of the planet,the universe or quantum physics for that matter. It is based on the interaction between God and his people.
No, they would call it an earthquake and deal with it. Their assurance came from knowing that God was on their side, and that assurance they got from knowing and doing his will. They knew under what judgment things happen, and on whose mercy they were dependent. Sometimes an event was seen as divine retribution, and other times they weren't, but at all times people were aware (or made aware) of their relation with God at the time.
There assurance came from God, not "knowing that God ...". In fact, a lot of the Bible is an exporation of the question "whether God ..." Superstitions might give you such an answer, but in the Bible the significance of events go far beyond whether God said or did something or not - the Flood is a great example. It forms part of an undestanding of God and the event as a stage in humanity's existence, whether other traditions would go to great lengths about epic consequences and cosmic struggles, the Bible merely mentions that God judged and God saved, and gets on with it.
He most definitely did - inthe Ten Commanments, no less.
Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
For your benefit, then, let's recap my argument:
1) We use human language to describe and explain most things.
In order to describe something and not something else, we have to choose our words carefully, knowing that the same word in a different context might describe something different. It is especially difficult in relation to God, because we have no reference points other than ourselves and our experience to describe Him. But in the end He is still more than words could ever do justice to, so we have to keep in mind that the words used to describe Him must be read in another frame of mind than when we descibe a kid at school. There is simply never enough information to form a complete picture and label it "God".
The barrier is ours because the problem with understanding is ours - with God as much as anything else. Words don't create concepts, it's concepts that require words. Anyway, we have agreed now that
2) God said the above.
3) Understanding is the key.
And with understanding language is a necessary evil to convey meaning. It's a constructive barrier, so to speak, because it creates a barrier between that which is described and that which is not. And in the Bible, sometimes God is described, sometimes God is doing the describing, and sometimes the ignorance or confusion of the people is described. There are poems and letters and whatnot.
But just like the parables of Jesus and the speaking in tongues by his disciples proved, language does not have to be the barrier. You are the only barrier between God and your "soul", who you really are.
So in conclusion, okinrus's "excuse" is valid - there are limitations to language in describing or dealing with God. But your conclusion that such a barrier must necessarily lead to misrepresentation (which amounts to lying about/by God), rendering the words in the Bible "fucking pointless", is unwarranted. As long as you have the rest of the Bible to guide your understanding, and people like okinrus and me who make an effort to understand it and actually live in a relationship with God, mere words shouldn't get in your way.
Last edited:
The above is silly, yet I will indulge.
Why can't a deity be 'so emotional'? Oh I forget, you have your own notion of how a deity should be and you are applying it to your question. Why won't you stupid atheists simply live the theists to their beliefs??? If you find them so pathetic, then why this constant stupidity?
God is jelous because we are His children and He want us to return to Him, He want's the best for us.
I don't believe God's name is Jelous as somebody pointed out, I believe God's name is "I AM" which I've interpreted as He is to each of us whatever each of us believe Him to be and we go to the man we serve. The path to God is through love, jelous isn't bad, it's just a token of love, it becomes bad to man, but is only bad for man because it can cause bad actions, but the bad actions are outside jelousy (they are bad in themselves, they aren't bad by jelousy). Jelousy can cause good actions too, it's up to you what to do when you feel jelous (the same with any other feeling, they can be tempters, but it's still up to your own choice using your free will). God, however, understands man, knows man's faults and weaknessess and we will be judged fair. Also the test is never above our skill to make it.
I don't believe God's name is Jelous as somebody pointed out, I believe God's name is "I AM" which I've interpreted as He is to each of us whatever each of us believe Him to be and we go to the man we serve. The path to God is through love, jelous isn't bad, it's just a token of love, it becomes bad to man, but is only bad for man because it can cause bad actions, but the bad actions are outside jelousy (they are bad in themselves, they aren't bad by jelousy). Jelousy can cause good actions too, it's up to you what to do when you feel jelous (the same with any other feeling, they can be tempters, but it's still up to your own choice using your free will). God, however, understands man, knows man's faults and weaknessess and we will be judged fair. Also the test is never above our skill to make it.
God (or possibly His son) must use the laws so that there is order and meaning, no piece can be missing in the chain of events. I think alot of laws are undiscovered by man, this may enable actions like healing and other (from our perspective) unnatural things to happen, or our existing laws might enable that to happen if used correctly.
Ok, I agree with you that God might not be a man, God might not be a woman either, but I use He and His as an easy way to get my meaning through also because "Father" might have a special meaning in the bible, maybe not Father as in man, but father as in the role of the father, that's also another reason why I believe that (unknown) said that (unknown's) name was "I AM", so that we don't make the fault of saying that (unknown) is something that (unknown) is not. (Unknown) is a undefined God, like it says in the bible when they visited the philosophers in Greece, there was alot of stone God's that they worshipped but one was to a unknown God, and they said that (unknown) was the God they believed in.
Sure God created everything good, and is everything good. But God also created lucifer which turned against God, but God had a purpose for lucifer also, which is to tempt and accuse mankind. Evil's purpose is according to the bible for judgement day.
"I AM that I AM" is simply the same meaning as "I AM" alone, but I see that it can be interpreted as you think, but the original "JWHW" (or what it is) should be translated simply "I AM", at least that's the impression that I got, but I can't be too certain of it.
I believe, however, as you do that God is everywhere and in everything.
Sure God created everything good, and is everything good. But God also created lucifer which turned against God, but God had a purpose for lucifer also, which is to tempt and accuse mankind. Evil's purpose is according to the bible for judgement day.
"I AM that I AM" is simply the same meaning as "I AM" alone, but I see that it can be interpreted as you think, but the original "JWHW" (or what it is) should be translated simply "I AM", at least that's the impression that I got, but I can't be too certain of it.
I believe, however, as you do that God is everywhere and in everything.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Actually, I'm a Christian.
There is a difference between mocking God, and asking questions or trying to understand his nature. God gave us minds with which to think. If he had wanted blind, thoughtless faith, then he would have made us all republicans.
Ivan seeks a circular path
Ivan;
:bugeye: I would've bet a penny and a half that you were a republican and an atheist. Either way, a deity can be anything as defined. Jealousy only takes on a negative connotation when applied to the human sense. Every emotion has a cause; what causes "God" to be jealous? Think context man!!!!! Everything is context!!! "God" could like wearing "high heels" and a fucking horse sized dick in his ass; it is fucking irrelevant. Get it?
Ivan;
:bugeye: I would've bet a penny and a half that you were a republican and an atheist. Either way, a deity can be anything as defined. Jealousy only takes on a negative connotation when applied to the human sense. Every emotion has a cause; what causes "God" to be jealous? Think context man!!!!! Everything is context!!! "God" could like wearing "high heels" and a fucking horse sized dick in his ass; it is fucking irrelevant. Get it?
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Re: Ivan seeks a circular path
Oh yes I get it. Bye thefountainhed.
Oh yes I get it. Bye thefountainhed.
Why would THE one and only "God" (according to the Bible) be jealous of other gods that do not exist?
Jealousy can lead to fury. See below
Nahum 1:2
"God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies."
I'm sorry, but this scripture kind of reminds me of grade school behavior. I just think a true God would be above this. Doesn't the bible say to love your enemies? Oh wait..unless you're god..then you can act as immature and brutal as you want.
They are not real gods, but that doesn't stop people from worshipping them as real gods. God is jealous of our attention, not theirs...
Have you read the whole oracle in Nahum 1? Oh, wait... you were trying to prove God had no reason but irrational jealousy. Of course it is bad if you are on the wrong side of it.
So what made God so furious, except his jealousy?
12 This is what the LORD says:
"Although they have allies and are numerous,
they will be cut off and pass away.
Although I have afflicted you, O Judah ,
I will afflict you no more.
13 Now I will break their yoke from your neck
and tear your shackles away."
14 The LORD has given a command concerning you, Nineveh :
"You will have no descendants to bear your name.
I will destroy the carved images and cast idols
that are in the temple of your gods.
I will prepare your grave,
for you are vile."
To simplify it: other "gods" were laying siege to God's people, provoking God's jealous protectiveness over his people, so He showed that the gods of Nineveh were no gods at all. He can send affliction, and He can take it away again. If it weren't for God's righteous jealousy, He might have continued to let Nineveh afflict Judah.
More like grown men who behave like children, throwing tantrums to try and get God's attention, or ignoring Him completely because they think they are doing fine on their own. I'm certain the inhabitants of Nineveh were sure their gods were favouring them above the Israelites. The Israelites had no such delusions - they were used to exile and oppression. To them, God's jealousy meant mercy.
I don't know why you think that. Did you forget this was the same Nineveh God showed unreasonable mercy to just two books earlier?
Last edited: