Gods?
 

We have all heard that one of the 10 Commandments is that there is only one true God and none other must be worshiped, but various cultures have their own reliegons and their own gods. So that leaves me to wonder, did the God of the old testament create these religons and gods as well?
This is all for the purpose of discussion, of course.

That's a really silly question.
Mainly because it would suggest that the Old Testament reigns supreme over every other religious text.
Which would be an absurdly ignorant way of looking at life.

I had more to this post originally, but I couldn't word it properly.

At any rate, religion is a personal thing. If you want to belief your God created X and Y but not Z, that's your right. Just don't expect a flood of people coming in agreeing with you.

No that God did not create the other Gods. One only need to look at the Ju| Hoansi and we are confronted with the reality that the 'Greater God' is in fact Gao Na. It is from this that I therefore conclude that the answer to your question is no. This is however but one of the many systems of knowledge which exist. Indeed as Facade pointed out there are numerous explanations of reality which exist out there.

To be fair I also tried testing the question a second time. As I thought, well maybe the Ju| Hoansi happen to be the only people with a system of knowledge which supersedes the God of the old testament. In order to double my sample size, I asked God over msn if she was created by the God of the old testament. Her response was to deny the legitimacy of such a claim.

My belief is that every god in every serious religion is actually the same.

Think about it: Religion is a construct of man, created to bring a greater understanding of the world. Therefore, every religion is a theory, rather than absolute truth. However, I do believe that most theories brought about in good faith have some truth to them - they may not be entirely correct, but they were based on something.

So, who is to say that every religious person in the world is not looking toward the same deity (or, if my theory is partially correct as well, collective), and simply calling it by a different name?

The Commandment is "Thou shalt have no other god before me", it does not include any mention of him being the only "true" god. As to your question, it is quite silly. It assumes YHVH exists, it assumes other gods exist, and it assumes that they are less powerful than he. So you might as well be arguing about who has the better imaginary friend.*

Amani: I've heard your idea many times before, and to be entirely honest, it somewhat ticks me off. Most of the gods people have worshiped throughout history are unique, be it in their stories or their commandments or their personalities. Your "theory" relies entirely on you knowing their gods better than they do. That's an extremely arrogant claim to make. I would also challenge your statement that religion was created to "bring a greater understanding of the world". Certainly, some religions serve that purpose, but it would be impossible to know the motivations behind the founding of most older religions and not all religions address the topic at all.

*Before anyone asplodes at me, no, I am not saying that gods are imaginary. I'm farther from an atheist than probably anyone on this forum.

Like God, I too find such a stance to be somewhat aggravating to say the least. Indeed the most positive observation I can make about such a stance is that it is naive. Let us take the example I gave in my recent post of Gao Na. There are two points which make this example quite capable of providing support for the case presented by God.

Firstly to the Ju| Hoansi, Gao Na is perceived as both flawed and fallible. This obviously causes some difficulties when we turn to other systems of knowledge which present a God/s as being omnipotent and all knowing. Indeed one only needs to look at their story of how Gao Na discovered sex to see this difference.

Another problem comes in that Ju| Hoansi have very personal relations with their Gods. As Katz identified in his field research into Ju| Hoansi this has presented a problem for Western academics who desired to codify their system of knowledge. So not only are there going to be cross cultural differences as God mentioned, but even within cultures we can find a lot of difference between individuals.

On a final note, I would agree with God when she says that such a position is arrogant in nature. While I would not say you are intentionally presenting an arrogant view. However it should be emphasized that by virtue of attempting to present a universal understanding of a cultural phenomenon which exists in many different environments you are consequently removing it from its appropriate context. Through this process you take away its meaning and impose upon it a new, and quite likely unrelated meaning.

If you have read the Old Testament. You would know that 'man created these false idols' in which you speak of.

Now, as far as the superior being topic. This one has been beaten to the point its soggy cereal that has evaporated. So, I am gonna touch on the few of my key points that get brought up when I come into these:

- Everyone has their own religious beliefs. Whether its in superior powers or not.
- No, you cannot change any ones personal opinions cause very few arguments brought forth hold any actual stand point.
- Oh my god. This topic is going round and round. Why isn't anyone listening to me?
- No, I will believe in which I believe and continuing to crucify me over it will only make you look more shallow and pathetic for telling me I am going to hell.

To reiterate what Phil said, the second commandment specifically states:

That does not mean that other gods do not exist. It's like having a girlfriend and she tells you, "You shall have no other girls before me." That doesn't mean that no other girls exist; it means you damn well better not cheat on her or she might cut your balls off.

Earlier in Exodus even, the mention of other gods is present, clear as day (emphasis mine).

There are other verses similar to this one that mention the existence of other gods, which I will list but you can feel free to look up the full texts yourself:
Exodus 15:11
Exodus 20:23
Deuteronomy 6:14
2 Kings 17:35
Jeremiah 25:6
Jeremiah 35:15
Numbers 33:4

Now, to answer your question, if we assume that in order for YHVH to execute judgment against the Egyptian gods (i.e., destroy them), he must have had the same power to create them, then it is possible that YHVH did create the Egyptian gods. However, this is an extreme assumption (among the assumptions that the Egyptian gods existed, and that YHVH exists, and so on) which does not include any other gods other than the ones in Egypt--there is no mention (that I am familiar with) of YHVH exacting judgment on any other gods.

Just because it is mentioned of them, does not technically mean they exist. It could simply be "Do not worship an idol or anything else to the extent in which you should worship me." Type of thing. Basically saying do not create other models, or figures to be considered 'gods' by mankind.

This really seems more like a debate topic btw. lol

That would make sense, except that in the verse she quoted, it says that he will "pass judgment on" them. You can't pass judgment on someone who doesn't exist. And if they didn't exist, he would not have mentioned them. The verse in Numbers is the same way:

This one goes even further, somewhat suggesting that YHVH had "overpowered" their gods, so to speak, and thus was able to kill their firstborn.

The other passages she mentioned, you do have a point, but I find it curious that not once does YHVH claim the other gods do not exist, merely that his people are not allowed to worship them.

Nissa: While some gods still worshiped are older than he is, not all of them are (Eostre, for instance). And that is if you assume that a deity's age is directly related to when she was first worshiped. I see no reason to assume that is the case, unless you are to completely disregard everything a god's followers have to say about the god in question. As we are discussing YHVH, according to Abrahamic tradition (as far as I know, there may be some exceptions and I may be wrong, I'm sure Key will correct me if I am :P), he has existed from the very beginning. Assuming he is only as old as, say, the "modern" form of Judaism, assumes that they are wrong. The rest of your post is just...confusing. It's true nearly every god worshiped is understood to have a sex (and thank you for including "nearly"; as someone who worships several gods who have no sex or a transient sex, it pleases me that you did not say anything absolute), but that does not mean all gods can procreate, or that they do so on a regular basis, or that they've done so aside from what we know from their myths.

What you're talking about isn't really what I was referring to, but I'll go ahead and bring up those passages. I've only really referenced one that specifically talks about gods or idols that people make up themselves.

These passages are distinctly different because they are referring to actual physical idols. There is a story about this in Exodus chapter 32, when Moses takes too long to come down the mountain with his commandments on stone tablets. Instead, Aaron collects the gold jewelry and things from the people at the bottom of the mountain, and shapes the gold into a calf that he places onto an altar. He then says that the calf is the god (actually, several gods, Exodus 32:4) that brought the Levites out of Egypt, and the people worshipped the golden calf. Then when Moses came down the mountain, he was so ticked off that he threw the stone tablets onto the ground and they broke. Then he tricked the sinners into killing each other, and YHVH struck a plague against anyone still left.

Earlier chapters in Exodus referred to Egyptian gods specifically, not idols. Similarly, Egypt's pharaoh (and even Moses) referred to YHVH as "the God of Israel" (Exodus chapter 5), implying that the Egyptian gods were as legitimate as YHVH; however, YHVH exacted judgement against them because the pharaoh would not let the Israelites stop working to go worship and have a festival in the desert, not because those gods were necessarily "false" (though YHVH declared that he was the supreme LORD and thus above the Egyptian gods).

Then, of course, there is the matter of idolatry, but Christians tend to be rather split on the subject, and isn't really related to whether or not other gods actually existed according to the Bible.

You can make a God out of anything. What your world- your life revolves around- whatever you hold highest and serve, be it alcohol, your family, your car, sex, your job, yourself. That is your god.

If you worship the creation more than the creator- you're serving another god, a false god.

Perhaps so when my particular theory is not fully explained. I apologize; I deliberately did not go into a long explanation, as that is not what this thread is about. However, the thought is this:

Yes, many religions have deities who are different from those who appear in different religions. There is a clear distinction. However, the fact is, not all religions can be 100% correct. Most if not all, however, are theories brought about in good faith; therefore most if not all should have some truth to them - therefore there are three possibilities:

1.) All deities are one and the same, and we have interpreted his/her/their will differently throughout the years.
2.) All individual deities coexist.
3.) All religions that worship any deity are all but entirely wrong - which is not likely, considering how long these theories have continued to exist.

By my theory, the answer is...actually both 1 and 2, equally, at the same time. Granted, it makes very little sense before it is explained, and since that is not the point of this thread, I will try to make this as brief as possible.

In this world, we have religions that practice ancestor worship. We have religions that see a Heaven, and refer to it as "the Kingdom of God," or something to that extent. This is where the collective I had mentioned comes into play: Imagine it as if every cell in your body had a consciousness of its own. Of course you would be unaware of it, but it would affect you, in some very small way. Now, lets assume the deities we worship are energy beings - and this energy is more or less "fluid." So, if my theory is partially correct, in death, the human soul becomes a "cell" of a larger entity, and because of the fluidity of the energy forming this entity, it can take many forms, thus leading to the variety of religions we have today.

Does it make a bit more sense now? Of course, I am certain I am partially wrong as well - I believe that this is the kind of thing we are not meant to fully understand until after we die. The best we can do in life is look around us and try to understand.

Although then the question becomes, should we worship The Creator or The Dark Creator? To help with this question I have included a picture of each in this post. I apologize for size differences. I was not trying to bias the results. V.V


http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...RL-EN-C-1E.jpghttp://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...T-EN-SR-LE.png

Two points of conflict from this part. Firstly I do not agree with referring to them sweepingly as religions. Which incidentally is why I have continuously referred to them as systems of knowledge. The reason for this being that many of the 'religions' only got known as such due to the colonial period, where Euroamericans went around the world classifying the people they came across. As has been identified by anthropologists etc, this act of labeling certain systems of knowledge as 'religion' was an act of marginalization. One which had very negative and detrimental impacts on how relations were conducted with them for quite some time (and still does in many ways).

Secondly not all systems of knowledge which had a classification imposed upon them against their wills worship one or more deities. Some worship none at all. This is the case in several Shamanistic systems of knowledge. Yet this did not stop the oppressors from using their position of power to define the people they encountered as such.

In honesty the question of whether or not a religion is real is not one which I address. As I do not even differentiate between religion and other cultural systems of knowledge. I would say that every religion is at least real insofar as it describes the reality which the people who hold it exist within. As anthropologists such as Gerald Berreman, Wade Davis and Social Constructionists have pointed out, the reality we exist within is socially constructed. This applies equally to systems of knowledge labeled as religion and those labeled as science.

This statement makes the presumption that you have access to how it is that religions came about. As each religion arose out of a unique cultural context, this is a claim which I find quite difficult to treat as credible. Furthermore you are still making the same generalization flaw. As Historical Particularism explained, you can not understand a cultural trait without looking at it in its own context. After all it is from its context that it derives its meaning. To remove it from this context is to therefore change its meaning and invalidate your observations.
Although like all cultural systems of knowledge, they exist for so long because they continue to enjoy legitimacy. One strong reason for this can be that they serve a particular role and function in society. Just as you can not understand a cultural trait without looking at its historical context, you must also look at it in relation to other aspects of the culture it exists within.

Returning to my earlier example of the Ju| Hoan system of knowledge, we find that this provides support for their egalitarian lifestyle. Furthermore it aid in maintaining social relations between members and groups. Richard Katz in his field research into the Ju| Hoansi has identified numerous ways in which it provides for social cohesion, the promotion of egalitarian values which I just mentioned and individual, community well being.

I know this is a late quote, but this is very C.S. Lewis.

Though, as you agree with me, I agree with you. Does this make this a stalemate? XD

As where you bring up a good point. If I were to say "Do not eat a raw pig while still unborn." Simply bringing this up does not make it feasible, nor does it make it impossible as you can still 'consume' and unborn fetus. Though, I went to extent with this. Best possible situation I could bring up in my current state of tired/drunk mind.
Just because something is not really in existence, does not mean that people do not believe its there. Kind of like the 'jack-o-lope.' Many believe it exists even though none have proven its existence. This could be the same situation. This 'god' may not want you to worship 'ares' (for example). Regardless of "Ares' existence or not, people believe he exists. So, saying (to similar effect since I am not pulling out scriptures and so forth, 'YHVH had "overpowered" their gods, so to speak, and thus was able to kill their firstborn.' Would create a "Hey do not worship this being" simply off the fact they "overpowered" them by saying that they were not gods.

Existence, in my opinion, is based off of human creation. If you believe something can exist that is yet to be proven/disproved many will believe it. There for worshiping these existing/non-existing gods would be worshiping 'false idols.' As a false god is something that is non-existent or not real.

If this does not make sense I am sorry. New crew came in today and got me plastered.. the bastards.

But that still doesn't make sense. I gave you the ones in which that reasoning could possibly be applicable, the ones in which YHVH is saying not to worship other gods. Those other two verses are referring to the other gods as actual, existent beings, beings YHVH was interacting with. He was not telling them that he overpowered their gods, the author was telling the reader that this is what had happened. He has no reason to lie. And that's what it comes down to -- even if YHVH was just being patronizing, he was lying. Thus, Christians are left with one of three choices: A)Their god can and does lie, even in instances where there are other options besides lying to get the same effect; B)The Bible is not accurate, and thus they cannot trust it; and C)There are other gods besides YHVH, he's just the most powerful one and the one they should be worshiping. I'd prefer to go with the third option, were I Christian.

And you're fine, it makes perfect sense :P Well, as much sense as this topic can make.

Christians believe that there is one might, omnipotent God and the way to earn salvation is to accept Jesus Christ, who is God on earth. They believe the best way to live as Christ is to read the Bible and follow his example.

Buddhists believe that all life is suffering and the way to reach "salvation" is to destroy the self by destroying desire; they believe that this can be achieved via the Eight-Fold Path.

How are these the same thing?

Because Jesus advocated throwing away worldly possessions?

Personally, I don't think that they are the same god, but I can see where people would see the parallels and draw comparisons between the two religions.

Well in my personaly belief no he didn' tcreate other religions, and the other gods... he was a merely a god who wanted control and didn't obtain the power he wanted, so he set forth and created a religion and forced people to worship him... but thats just me idk about others. Religion is a very subjective topic and any and everyone who debates it sees it with a bias eye so I doubt you will find any answers that suite you.

...Unless I misread your post, you are suggesting polytheists no longer exist. I hate to break it to you, hun, but you're wrong. Not only do polytheists exist, but polytheists who worship gods who, according to you, became "obsolete" a long time ago, such as Hellenics, Khemetics, and Asatru, still exist. Why is this? Because you're also way off in your assumption of why people believed (and still believe) in gods. It's true, humans have long used gods to explain things, but it doesn't take too in-depth an understanding of ancient theology to know that isn't all they were for. And if we're going to go way back, to the very beginning of theistic belief, they weren't used for that at all. Our (early, early) ancestors worshiped those forces they were subject to -- the Sun, fire, and the earliest we've found yet, bears. They were attempting to supplicate them, yes, but they weren't attempting to explain any phenomena. Likewise, the Greeks, while they believed earthquakes were the work of Poseidon and lightning, Zeus, their use for these gods was not limited to explanations of natural events.

Also, proof human nature is flawed nature. Objectively-speaking, I mean. Note that in order to do this, you must dismiss a great many groups' understandings of the terms "flawed" and "perfect".

Syraanabelle: The same goes for you. Prove that all the religions of the world, all that exist now and have ever existed, were created to tell people how to live and to have someone to blame. Unless you're limiting it to the religious life, I know of several which break the first one, and the second part is immediately wrong even without considering it, since there are atheistic religions and thus, no one to blame but yourself, but is further proved wrong by systems like deism in which the deity plays no part in the world or what happens therein.