Some would claim that. Others would disagree. Little can be proven one way or the other.
Thought experiment
- Thread starter Silent Bob
- Start date
- Status
GAH, ya beat to it Poe. And I looked it up and I read its from the King James version Exodus 34: 14 "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." There ya go.
Notice the lack of "before me" (not that it would change the meaning in this context, but still, that was your claim about the translation). So how does that verse prove (or even imply) that God is admitting to other gods existing before him?
Okay I will admit the "before" part was my bad memory, but he also doesn't say that there AREN'T other gods. He says not to worship other gods than him. So...gray area there.
And at other points he clearly says that he is the only one (like Deuteronomy 4:35 and Isaiah 45:5-6), does that help clarify the gray area?
The idea of 'before' should likely be understood as; above/other than/at all.
Relevent text: God Against the Gods
It's a really good history of the fall of polytheism and the rise of monotheism in the Roman Empire.
This is also true. I just figured he was referencing the wrong verse anyway, as he was, and decided not to bring up unneccessary points.
Issaiah yes...if the Exodus line didn't make it confusing. If there were no other gods, than what the hell is there to be jealous of Jealous? The Exodus line implies that there MIGHT have been other gods, but the original Isaaiah line states with definite certainty that there were no other gods. And the fact that the Dueteronomy line is eerily similar to the Issaiah line feels kind-of like he's forcing it, like people forgot from the first book.I might be looking to much into it, but it is a big continuity error for me.
Necronic
Staff member
There's also Snowcrash, which, while not exactly a scholarly book, has some pretty cool stuff about Asherah, Yahweh's "consort"/bff god buddy, in it. It also has techno-ninjas.
The Exodus line is that there are other gods that other people are worshiping, like the dozens back in Egypt. They no longer exist, and if you make him angry by worshiping Baahl he'll start smiting things...
Aaaaaaaaah, that actually does make a bit of sense. So he gets angry at people basically worshiping dead people. Because he is the fancy pants new god that will always be in style and will never be replaced. Though logic dictates that if those gods could die and be replaced, his reign would come to an end as well. So logically Jealous can die him/her/itself and is just playing him/her/itself up. Meh, whatever works for him/it/her.
How is it logical for the one true god to die?
Nietzsche aside...
Nietzsche aside...
Logically, there's only a few possibilities:
- There is no God or Gods. Never was. Complete fabrication of culture over time.
- There is or was many Gods, and some have been beaten by, and/or destroyed, and/or killed by ones that still exist, and/or some are just not prominent anymore. This overlaps with the case of that the Monothestic Gods are lying to their followers and that more than "just them" exist.
- There has only ever been one God or one Pantheon and/or one Religion is "right" and the rest are fabrications by those that didn't believe in that said God. This overlaps with the idea that one exists and no religion has it right either (agnostic, kinda) and/or they haven't made themselves known.
- There are multiple "faces" on actually only one divine source. So Allah, Jehovah, Shiva, Thor, and whomever else you want to throw in there (I did pick the first 4 that I could put a "name" to) are all actually the same dude/dudette, with some mangling of message over time. This kind of overlaps with #3 depending on how you look at things.
I'll believe the polytheistic belief, mostly out of if there is an etheric world that would be the most logical outcome in my opinion. And yes, I am using logic to explain how spiritual/mythological/magical beings could exist. Over-analyzing is my true purpose and I'm all-right with that.
You're missing one. The belief that God IS the set of rules that govern the universe, rather than some sort of mystical being therefore making god and science indivisible.
hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid
Heh, we did that quote backwards.
If god is the natural force of science I would buy that, but said force being sentient is another matter itself. If god is the forces of science, that basically makes him the entire universe. Meaning the universe itself is one living breathing organism that has full control of all its organs, limbs, and microorganisms inside it. So...could the universe theoretically get sick? And if so, what medicine does the universe take or what food does a universe eat? This...is making me rethink everything in all honesty. What if the multiverse is just a couple of organisms and alternate universes are made by other universes procreating. What if we as microorganisms inside said macro organism can be turned into waste? Maybe thats what black holes REALLY are! The entry way to the universe's small intestines where we become corroded into nothing but waste. If so, than the meaning of life literally shit happens. And I can believe that.
If god is the natural force of science I would buy that, but said force being sentient is another matter itself. If god is the forces of science, that basically makes him the entire universe. Meaning the universe itself is one living breathing organism that has full control of all its organs, limbs, and microorganisms inside it. So...could the universe theoretically get sick? And if so, what medicine does the universe take or what food does a universe eat? This...is making me rethink everything in all honesty. What if the multiverse is just a couple of organisms and alternate universes are made by other universes procreating. What if we as microorganisms inside said macro organism can be turned into waste? Maybe thats what black holes REALLY are! The entry way to the universe's small intestines where we become corroded into nothing but waste. If so, than the meaning of life literally shit happens. And I can believe that.
Ah, like Doctor Manhattan. Could a sentient all powerful being truly be considered all powerful if it is merely the manifestation of the forces of the universe and could only act based on what would and will logically happen? Would be able to choose, or would it only be able to act out what was pre-destined to happen? These are things to think of when thinking of higher beings.
With all due respect, for matters of translation, one would have to look back to the original languages, namely Aramaic and Koine Greek if one really wanted to make this kind of argument.
Also, KJV is a horrible translation.
This is true, but I've looked on a lot of bible sites and this is said to be the literal translation. I've also read the arabic word for jealous can mean different things so it could mean something else entirely. Preeeeeeeeeety confusing.
Yes, and it would also take questions of intent or culpability for the existence of evil out of the equation. Because good and evil would be an entirely man made construct.
Jus....no....what?
I didn't notice your later posts. I was responding to your original post about the "before" thing. You actually took it somewhere good though so I retract my "no".
Basically you were getting stuck on a word, "before" and assigning your own idea of what that meant, in this case a chronological meaning, when, as has been pointed out, the concept is about putting Yahweh first in one's life/worship.
Translations and textual criticism get really, really tricky. KVJ is actually a terrible translation. New American Standard is probably the most "literal" which does not mean "best". Currently the ESV is probably the best modern translation if one wants to read it.
Remember that textual criticism is a very, very in depth field. People spend years and years learning how to translate and deal with ancient texts and it's still hard for them with their fancy Doctorates and such, let alone us random schlubs on the inter webs.
Hooray! Before, any other, its all good in the hood! Really though I thought it was "before" cos that was the version that was drilled into me as a kid from relatives and TV specials.
There are versions that say "before". However the way you are defining "before" in this case would not be correct. It is not about there being other gods existing "before" God it would be about not worshiping any other God but Yahweh. Make sense? Kind of like how I can say, "I LOVE cheeseburgers" and "I LOVE my wife" but mean two very different things.
Yup, got it now. The original line has some ambiguity, but the before text is straight up.
(first of all, let me say that I'm being completely serious in this post)
Now see, all this time I took "before" to mean "presented" as in, "the prisoner was brought before the judge." Thus I saw it not as "You will not value any other gods higher than you value me (priority)," nor "You will not place me later in the sequence of worship (order)," but instead "You will not let me see/catch you worshipping other gods (perception)" where "before" just essentially meant "within my field of view" (which, being the God of Abraham and Isaac, and omnipresent and all, would make it pretty much impossible to sneak in any kind of service to another deity, anywhere, anytime).
--Patrick
Now see, all this time I took "before" to mean "presented" as in, "the prisoner was brought before the judge." Thus I saw it not as "You will not value any other gods higher than you value me (priority)," nor "You will not place me later in the sequence of worship (order)," but instead "You will not let me see/catch you worshipping other gods (perception)" where "before" just essentially meant "within my field of view" (which, being the God of Abraham and Isaac, and omnipresent and all, would make it pretty much impossible to sneak in any kind of service to another deity, anywhere, anytime).
--Patrick
# 5 Pantheism?
Man there sure are a lot of definitions for before. Cray-cray.
So does god have a physical form at least according to the old and new testaments? Is that specified?
So does god have a physical form at least according to the old and new testaments? Is that specified?
No actual physical manifestations. But he was present to Moses in the form of a fire that did not consume the bush. Also he manifested himself in the form of messengers (angels) and his son.
Burning bush and Jesus are the only ones I can think of off-hand, but I'm not exactly a scholar for this type of thing. And the first is basically a manifestation, and the second is really, really, really complicated as to the "was Jesus God, some of God, half-God, etc?" There are people that have built their entire philosophical and/or theological careers on that one question alone.
- Status