Talk:Other gods

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Other gods as edited by Dsherman (Talk | contribs) at 19:49, 7 March 2013. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Other Gods Article Truly Lacking

I'm going to see what i can do about adding actual information on Non-Abrahamic gods both historical and contemporary. This article seems more condemning than it does informative. Drop me a line if all that is gonna happen is a reversion if i try to input information about deities other than the Christian God lol.

Other gods not doing anything

My friend Learn Together, let's put your name into practice. You added some text about how nothing in the Bible ever says the gods did anything. What are your thoughts on "Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." Judges 11:24. Ungtss 21:01, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

If you would, please respond to my concern above. I don't think your statements about the other gods never doing anything in the Bible are true. Ungtss 11:00, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
I did respond, and I'm not very happy to see that my answer did not show up for some reason. The section you site is part of a long speech by Jephthah talking with the Ammonites to avoid battle since the Ammonites are saying they are going to take back the land. It's basically asking them to apply the same standard they use to the Israelites in the language they understand. Chemosh gave you land, well God gave us the land so don't attack us. You will still note that nowhere is Chemosh described as actually doing anything. He doesn't come out in the battle that takes place for instance. On the other hand, the Bible has many references to the gods not being real. Check up II Kings 19:18-19 as an example. The other gods are not real, and there is only one God. Learn together 11:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Seems to me he's saying that Chemosh gave them land ... what of the other cites on the debate page, indicating the God judges among the gods etc ... and what of the Bene Elohim that bred with human woman, resulting in giants? That term shows up again in Job 1. Ungtss 11:34, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
According to Peter, the Bene Elohim were fallen angels. Some Christian denominations view it simply as poetic language and they were humans. There is no concensus. As far as the rest, you are grasping for straws in a field of hay. For those who don't read the Bible and only read website with individual verses, the things you bring up might have meaning to them, but on this site many of the sysops and contributors are well aware of the complete Bible reading, the admonitions against worshiping other gods that neither see nor hear, and the entire flow of the narrative discarding any god intervention and where God alone is the focus for the hearts and minds of humans. Learn together 12:47, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
Please stick to the issues, my friend. Your argument consists only of an assertion of authority. The fact that you are a sysop on Conservapedia doesn't mean anything more than the fact that I studied the Bible for four years at a conservative Christian college called Wheaton College. I'm not claiming that my time in study gives me any authority either. I'm asking you to stick to the issues. Second, nobody's claiming that all gods worshipped by people are real, nor that any of these gods (real or unreal) are worthy of worship. The Bible is clear on both points. But it also appears to me to be clear that (in all my straw verses -- and incidentally, there is often straw to be found in hay fields) the ancients acknowledged the existence of many gods, while worshipping only one. You have the clearly plural use of elohim and the clearly singular use of yahweh elohim. You have the clear existence of other people outside Adam's immediate family. You have ancient historical accounts from all cultures that these gods were real, tangible, and very very wicked. You have the human propensity to create cargo cults, not from imaginary things, but from real, things which they misunderstand. You have Paul acknowledging that there are many gods. You have reference to the "counsel of the gods" and Yahweh "judging among the gods" in Psalms. I'm not proposing that these gods are coequal with Yahweh. I'm merely proposing that they existed, and that human beings erroneously began to worship them (the created) rather than Yahweh (the creator). I can think of no other way to explain the common theme running throughout all ancient historical literature (including, in my opinion, the Bible) that these gods existed, and were wicked beyond our worst nightmares. What do you think? Ungtss 13:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
I am not a sysop, merely a prolific contributor who agrees with the right to have a forum where conservative views can be seen without being removed in the name of "tolerance". My argument consists of the full narrative of the Bible itself. I was merely pointing out that grabbing a couple of verses in the face of an overall contradicting flow and trying to make them stand on their own isn't going to fly as this is a group with Biblical knowledge. I was also at Wheaton, and at least that lets me know you're not just a website surfer. Who were your favorite religion professors? I would say that the ancients acknowledged that other gods were worshipped by others, not that they were real. As stated the plural elohim is the trinity, a foreshadowing of the triune nature of God and what was to come. There is not a clear existence for people outside of Adam's family, although Peter's writing can be taken that fallen angels did enter the picture. Paul's statement shows there is but one real God. Ancient historical accounts do not read the same as the Bible. I agree ancient accounts have an active belief in pantheons of gods, and it is very apparent, but the Bible comes across in a very different form. The council of gods is actually sons of gods, the same term used in Genesis that describes the angels producing the giants. If anything, what you are advocating is that God had offspring similar to the way that Greek gods might have offspring. We adhere to the totality of the work of the Bible, a skill I'm sure you learned at Wheaton, where we use scripture to interpret and help us understand scripture. The concept of God and only God is an ongoing theme. As in any ancient work especially, you can pick and create your own concepts. How about this one: The ancient humans didn't have the same gender breakdown that we have today as it is obvious from the geneologies that, with the exception of Dinah, they gave birth exclusively to men. But since they had wives, it can be inferred that another mirror society must have been created that gave birth exclusively to women. The question would become is that what the work is truly saying, or am I creating a concept that would not match the orginal meaning. Learn together 14:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm really enjoying our conversations -- thanks:). Prof Hill in OT was my favorite -- although I (obviously) had a rather odd set of beliefs for the environment:). The problem with "Bible as a whole" arguments, in my opinion, is that they are really just a more confident way of saying "The way I read the Bible as a whole," without addressing the matter at issue. For instance, I can think of no reason to think that the plural elohim in Genesis is a foreshadowing of the trinity -- in fact, the word "trinity" is completely absent from the Bible, both new and old testament -- as is the word "homoousios." What hard evidence is there, anywhere in scripture, to support the conclusion that Moses was referring to the trinity? I admit the verses I used to support my conclusion are widespread and disconnected. But there are none to support the trinitarian alternative. The only way to support such an argument, in my opinion, is to come to genesis with the Trinity (an idea debated from hundreds of years by theologians and philosophers, and absent from scripture itself), and read the trinity into the verse, because there's nothing in the text to support such a connection. The "mirror society" example you provided is amusing, but I don't think it hits the mark -- primarily because of one major issue -- Gen 5:4 -- "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." Ungtss 15:14, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

I liked Ericson's teachings. He helped me to realize the importance of being part of a church body regardless of the American disposition for individualism. I also liked the way he would handle intricate questions of theology when asked which position was right, "Yes".

Sometimes reading the work as a whole is an answer. My difficulty with your presentation was with the widespead and disconnected verse approach. How many people, if they read the Bible through, would conclude there are multiple gods, not just in name, but with actual form and power? I think we both know the answer to that. So you don't believe that Moses was referring to the trinity? Fine. I have no trouble with differing positions based on scripture, as long as they are honest efforts to attempt to arrive at what the scriptures say. Traditional Christian thought teaches the inspiration of the scriptures guided by God, not that those who were writing necessarily understood all that they were putting down for posterity. I doubt Moses could have fully understood the concept of the Trinity, but then it wasn't for him as much as a key to be seen in retrospect when the fulfillment of time had come. There's no word Trinity, but there is praying in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd have people pray in my name in the same sentence as God. At the same time while I believe in the Trinity, I will not chastise those who in good faith and open study have questions. It's not my place to do so. Learn together 12:22, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

You're a good guy:). All valid points. I would say, tho, that I think any person who reads the Bible in detail would come to the conclusion that the authors believed in the existence of heavenly beings other than God -- to include the messengers (which we translate as angels), the bene elohim, the watchers, etc. And I think any person who looked at ancient pagan literature would realize that the "gods" they worshipped bare a striking resemblance to these other beings named in the Bible. And they might be tempted (as I am) to identify the two. It's been a pleasure:). Ungtss 18:04, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Well I agree with God and the angels, but if you want things like watchers, you'll have to turn on Highlander... ;-) Peace to you. Its been nice talking with a fellow Wheatonite. If you want to discuss any other theology issues just email me. God Bless Learn together 16:21, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I will make this very simple for you. There isn't a god. There is no god, and therefore no "other gods". Furthermore, whatever you are talking about at the top of this talk page is very boring. Try reading Harry Potter; it may be blasphemous but it has goblins in it, and is a lot more interesting than the Bible, or even any of the other books from better religions. Now let's stop arguing about this and go for pizza :) Macphisto12 16:25, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Good argument. You completely convinced me. I should just give up my faith because you signed up and posted "there is no god", huh? DanH 16:27, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Since he's convinced there is no god at all, perhaps Macphisto12 can provide mankind with the cure for cancer. Post it right here, Mac. Karajou 17:01, 23 December 2007 (EST)


  • I think this article should be renamed to something like Non-Christian Gods or Non-Biblical Gods. As it stands, the article title doesn't state who the god is in respect to which these other gods are "other." I think the intent is obvious, but still . . . Masterbratac 09:14, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
I see your point, but I think that it should not change. Rather, I've clarified the term in the introduction of the article. Does that help? Philip J. Rayment 07:49, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

I definetly agree. "Other gods as opposed to God?" There are conservatives all over the world who strongly belive in a god just not the stories in the bible. So indeed this should be changed ASAP. Ondskan 18:08, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

  • There isn't a single name of another 'God' on here.... so the religions of civilizations through time and the faith of billion have no relevance to modern American Christians? I'm a Aethist and even I am able to view other peoples faith and even study them, not shut them out so anyone who views this articles just gets biblical quotes.

--Jdanngeology 13:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Surely 'False Gods' would do? Anything else is pandering to the idea that there could be gods other than the true God. Petertatchell23 10:39, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Zielwolf's edits

Zielwolf added two bits to this article, both of which I'm questioning. The first was to claim that the worship of other gods was usually through organised religion. I'm not really sure what this means, and whether it's really true, and whether it's relevant. In ancient times (and likely still now in places), people had their 'personal idols' which they worshipped. I think that it would be a stretch to call this 'organised religion', or to claim that this was not "usual".

The second was to point out that some religions don't have a god. I've no problem with the accuracy of at least the first two sentences of this paragraph, but can't see that it is relevant in this article.

What do others think?

Philip J. Rayment 20:41, 13 February 2008 (EST)