That depends on your standards for reliability...

I'm not getting upset :) Just contesting. Specifically, contesting the idea that you posted earlier that following a single path is less effective than being open to all paths. That idea is intuitive, but it's unprovable and based on unsound assumptions.

But again, that isn't what I said. I said that a closed path is more limiting than an open one, specifically in regards to achieving enlightenment. I think by definition we can all agree to the more general case (a closed path is more limting than an open one) is there any reason that general statement would *not* apply to enlightenment?

That's not the point. More limiting does not mean less effective. The overwhelming majority of people who can be said to have achieved enlightenment did follow a "closed" path.

I doubt that, but then again I believe you may be misreading what I am saying about what it means for a path to be closed as well, so go ahead, name some.
FYI- my definition of a closed path is not according to a specific faith or religion, but teh attitude that their doctrine holds all wisdom, and that other doctrines are corrupting, misleading, and have no value. So I am curious who you would pick that simultaneuosly holds that position and whom you consider to be enlightened.
Or perhaps again your reflexive assumption of what I meant led you to an erroneous reading of my statements?

Alright, so you're saying that a closed path is more limiting than an open one regarding finding enlightenment - but may still be more effective. I guess I can accept that - the open path may or may not be faster, but it certainly has more scenery.

May be more effective for some goals, yes.

I think GMC's original comment can be supported by non-biblical historical research. The early semitic god was not significantly different from other gods of the region. The only real difference was, at the time of Moses, it became an exclusive religion. This is different from other peoples because as the landscape shifted, cities (and individuals) would accept new gods, or new names for old gods, in order to integrate the new ruling class with the people.

If you read up on the politics of the period, the Semetic tribes were rather xenophobic and exclusive, especially the tribes further to the south of the area.

Around the time of the Jesus was the next major change, when Yahweh ceased to be a local god, a god just for the Jewish people, and instead became a universal God, the God that ruled all people.

It's important to realize that the people of the time lived and were raised with neighbors who would worship their own gods for their towns, and this was just how things were. It's like I respect the office of the president of the US, but not the queen of England, because I'm American, not English.  God saying 'worship no other gods' does not imply that the other gods are legitimate, but it also isn't saying that the people of Uruk should not worship Inanna (because remember, they aren't Jewish).

I really don't see this as being so confusing.

The text in question itself also makes it clear that man-made gods are being condemned.

If my wife is snuggling up to a stuffed chicken and spending all of her time with it and calling it her husband, not only would I call into question her sanity, but jealousy would be a possible real feeling as well.  However, there is no confusion that she actually has another husband.

I'm on the fence here so far.  I think katisara's point that the message was only for Jews at the time is an important one.  In the "you shall have no other gods before me", "you" refers to the Jews, not to everyone.  Which makes things a bit ambiguous.

I also think Doulos' example perhaps hurts his argument slightly.  If your wife was getting freaky with a chicken, and claiming it was her other husband, the natural response would seem to be "that's not a husband, it's a chicken!"  If instead you said "you're not supposed to have another husband other than me!" it sort of seems to imply that you accept that the chicken could be a husband if you hadn't already gotten first dibs.

That said, I think there's enough ambiguity, at least in the 10 commandments passage, to read it either way.  The Isaiah line seems like a pretty strong example Doulos' side.

My example might be silly, who knows.

Either way, when dealing with ambiguity it seems wise to then refer to texts that are quite explicit and clear like in Isaiah.

I think the historical context is also very important.

There are many references in the bible to other gods.  They were condemned not because they didn't exist, nor because they were man made, but because they were in competition with YHVH for the worship of the Jews.  What's more, this view is supported by the historical record: this is how everyone worshiped in those days.  Remember that YHVH inarguably started off as a tribal god: By saying "I am your only god", he doesn't necessarily mean he is the only god, just the true god for the Jews.

Another interesting note about the wording of the 10 comandments as it has come to us: "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before ME"

Makes no mention of after... So long as God is primary in your worship by the wording of the english text you can give secondary veneration to whomever you like, so long as they do not opose nor compeet with God.

Interesting viewpoints.  Completely disagree with them because it seems to be overcomplicating a direct reading of things.

Obviously there was a belief in a TON of other gods at the time, but for the Jews to believe that only one was real seems very logical and in step with the OT.

But if I may venture, do you do research from non-religious sources? Non-Christian sources? Have you talked about a Jewish biblical scholar, or a secular one, on what the most likely mindset was at the time?

One problem we all face is that we are modern people reading modern translations with a modern mindset. But realistically, did people view God the same way we do now? Other gods? The likelihood of that is almost nil, given how different our entire worlds are. Just speaking for myself, I don't even know what the modern Jewish view on the matter is, muchless that of someone who actually lived in the time.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. Just that dismissing other viewpoints as 'over-complicated' may be ignoring some major factors.

I don't mean to be dismissive.  My personal take is that while a historical understanding of these matters is critical, that sometimes things become overcomplicated when they don't need to be.

Countless times the OT speaks clearly about one god, only god, god alone etc.

I tend to gravitate towards the clear and easy to understand when making decisions as to how to interpret something.

It seems like words are being morphed into a fuzzy understanding in an effort to make a point about something that in other places seems to be utterly clear.  I could be wrong though, I fully admit that.

Countless times the Old Testament also refers to multiple gods, other gods, etc.  YHVH is always referred to as the primary god of the Jews, but other gods are referenced plenty of times. I think it was Solomon who was punished for consulting a witch-- not because the witch was wrong, but because she worshiped another god.

Now, we're faced with the possibility that the bible either does refer to multiple gods, or there's a contradiction in the bible (in which case, it still refers to multiple gods).  In either case, there's a lot of references to other gods.

I completely agree that the Bible discusses other gods.

The question is whether those gods were to viewed as real/competing/alternate or simply as idols/fake/false.

I'm not convinced it's anything other than the latter.

In reply to Doulos (msg #68):

Again, the verse I cited above makes it clear that YHVH is jealous of other gods.  I'd have to say they exist in order to him to be jealous of them.

I don't agree at all.  Can simply be jealous of the undue attention that your people are giving to these false idols.

Again, this is a verse with some ambiguous language being compared to a massive volume of texts that say otherwise.  For example:

Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Isaiah 44:6-8
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

Deuteronomy 4:35
To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.

Psalm 86:10
For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God.

These are just the OT and from various book. Isaiah alone is riddle with very explicit verses that say only YHVH is God.

I'm not saying that the OT does not speak of other gods, but only that the clear message is that there is but one God, despite what other gods may be worshipped (by the Jewish people or others)

As I am writing this I just realize the potential source of confusion here.  I am very open to the Jewish people historically having other gods other than YHVH, or even that YHVH was just one of many in a potential pantheon of gods worshipped by certain people in certain regions.  Sure, no problems there.

However, if we're speaking of the message of the OT, then I don't believe it can be any clearer - YHVH is God and God alone, despite whate else people might be saying or doing.

Anyways, I have massive issues with the OT as a document of much worth anyways these days, so tis whole discussion is more academic than practical for me, but I have to admit I have always been confused by claims that the OT itself indicates that actual other gods existed, only that other so called gods were worshipped/followed.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:17, Wed 13 June 2012.

I'm no expert on ancient Hebrew, but I noticed that there's a difference between god as "a divine being", and God as in supreme being.  In many of the passages you cite, it can easily be interpreted that there is only one true god of the Jews.  Your Malachi verse, for example-- it clearly refers to the Semetic god YHVH, and does not exclude any of the others, since it refers to the god who created them.  That does not mean that another god did not create the other people in the world.  (And in fact, Genesis references some such people, such as the inhabitants of the land of Nod.)


When it comes to the message of the old testament, it says that there is one true god for the *Jews*: YHVH.  Not that YHVH is the only real divine being, just that he is the one for the Semitic tribes, and he will tolerate worship of no other.

The concept that there is only one god, period, I'm not sure where it originated.  Sometime after the time of Paul; he referenced other gods, although I can't recall him outright denouncing any as false.  At any event, the point was that I'm not sure when omnipotence or singularity was bestowed on YHVH.  It wasn't in the old testament, though.

Well interesting to see how people interpret things.  As always that's why I find the OT close to useless these days (along with almost every text in existence) in that 2 people can look at the exact same thing and see completely different versions of it.

Yes, this I can agree with. If taken as a whole, the OT does say that there is only one true God. However, there were definitely periods, and individuals or tribes (Jewish and not) who felt otherwise.

So to answer GMC's question, Yahweh was attributed those things because a prophet said so (whether you believe he was divinely inspired or not), and it was incorporated as part of the body of beliefs. We can definitely see that pretty clearly in the OT. However, I think this was a gradual development of understanding, and it is in fact rather unique for the time.

I have no problem with that at all.  My only concern was with the belief that the OT itself does not claim to hold a monotheistic view.