How many gods are there?

by jgnat 85 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Chariklo

  Ixthis, you wrote

  The eastern Orthodox Christians believe in a single God who is both three and one (triune): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "one in essence and undivided". The Holy Trinity is three "unconfused" and distinct divine persons (hypostases), who share one divine essence (ousia)-uncreated, immaterial and eternal. The Father is the eternal source of the Godhead, from Whom the Son is begotten eternally and also from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. The essence of God being that which is beyond human comprehension and can not be defined and or approached by human understanding.

  According to my understanding, that is what all Western Christians also believe, saving the one difference that Western Christians affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, by using the Nicene Creed. It's the filoque clause on which the Eastern Church split from the West in 1054. However, although that event caused the Great Schism a thousand years ago, the two branches of the church are sufficiently close to be in communion with each other, i.e. Catholics and Anglicans (Episcopalians) can and do take Holy |Communion in Orthodox churches, and vice versa. And I was interested to read in Wikipedia just now (I searched for the exact date 1054) that "Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause."

  Jgnat, you asked Ixthis

  What is the Eastern Orthodox position on Satan. Is he seen as a minor god with some powers?

  I stand open to correction, but I think you'll find that the Eastern Orthodox position on whether the Devil is seen as a god or not will be the same as my own (Catholic) or that of godrulz, who I believe is Pentecostal...is that correct?

  Speaking entirely personally, I believe in one God, who made Heaven and Earth. (Leaving aside Three in One just for the moment.) I think that basic belief is common to all Christians outside the WT, who insist that Jesus is "a god" and Satan too, apparently. There is only one God. Every other conceivable spirit is therefore (according to the general Christian belief which I also hold) exactly just that, a spirit in concept and, for those who believe in them, in actuality. By no means all Christians believe in the existence of such spirits or even the Devil, but for the most part that's an individual belief, not orthodox (with a small o.)

  I oberve the disharmony beween yourself and Godrulz, but although he (I assume he is a he and not a she, don't know why) although he is Pentecostalist and I am Catholic, (hey, no longer even feeling like an "unbaptised publisher", hooray! ) it seems to me and he and I are fairly close in belief on many things, though not all.

  Jgnat, I think the problem here is that you seem, if I may say so, to be determined to hang on to a concept of gods with a small g, even though I can also see that this is for polemic and that you don't actually believe in them at all. If you were to substitute "spirit" for "god", and in doing so allow for spirits of different levels of power, would that satisfy your reasoning?
• 

  ixthis

  Good post chariklo!!
• 

  godrulz

  Heb. 1 links faith and evidence vs divorces the two. Faith in a lie is false presumption. Faith in something real/true/evidence-based is solid. Again, faith is not a blind leap in the dark, but is based on knowledge/evidence, even if incomplete or inadequate (probability/weight of evidence).
• 

  Chariklo

  @ixthis: Thanks!
• 

  wobble

  How many Gods are there ?

  I dunno, but one is one too many.
• 

  godrulz

  One Satan is too many, but one God is enough.
• 

  PSacramento

  I would fell much better if you would assure us that the above was posted as satire.

  Feel better my friend, it was 100% satire, LOL !
• 

  jgnat

  Charilko, thank you for your balanced and thorough reply. I don't subscribe to any minor gods either. One God, one Creator.

  My background is very close to godrulz; a pillar in my evangelical church. I've questioned it's excesses, and I now have an aversion to dogmatism of any kind. Excesses I have observed by evangelicals:

  • Assuming that those unreached with the Gospel are automatically lost. (Can't God intervene?) This leads to rude evangelism.
  • Attempting to bolster the bible with science and reason. Why not accept the bible for what it is, without demanding the divine?
  • Lock-step obedience to specific scripture, without context. I have seen battered wives remain in a marriage, believing they were obeying God. But how can such a marriage be divine? It is an abomination of love.
  • Replacing hope with hope for the end to come. Believing in an immenent armageddon does not make better people. They are fearful, do not plan, and grasp for evidence of world collapse.
  • Emphasis on fighting evil, rather than building, growing, creating, and loving. I am convinced you do not destroy darkness by slashing at it. You rid darkness by generating light.

  Godrulz, you've hopelessly blended faith with reason. Faith in an unseen God must be done in absence of evidence. To believe regardless, now that is substance.

  Anything I believe based on reason and observation, I don't need faith for.

  http://charterforcompassion.org/site/
• 

  godrulz

  Evangelism is persuasive, but does not have to be rude. Those outside of Christ are lost in need of the gospel. This is explicit in Christ's teaching and in Scripture. Are you saying we should not preach the gospel to anyone and assume all godless people are actually saved?

  The Bible is inconsistent with good science and reason.

  The problem is not with the Bible, but with bad interpretation/application. Evangelicals are not immune to this, but do much better than the cults do. There is not a problem with obeying Scripture, but there is a problem in obeying a twisting of it.

  I believe in the imminent return of Christ, the blessed hope of the Church. We will not be here for Armageddon. I live each day as if it will be my last, but also as if I will be here for a full life (so plan in wisdom and attempt to be fruitful). An abuse of this doctrine does not negate the truth or benefit of it. Your beef is with Paul and should not be with flakes who distort Pauline thought.

  It is fight evil and promote good, not either/or.

  God has revealed Himself in Christ. It is hard to trust an invisible, unknown God, so He has given us evidence, reasons to believe. Without evidence, we would likely believe lies, falsehoods, deception, etc. Faith does not mean exhaustive evidence, but without fact it is mere presumption and likely error.

  Evangelicals have good and bad and a variety of beliefs and practices. Jesus and Paul were dogmatic about core truth without compromise. Being dogmatic about debatable, peripheral, less clear issues is a valid concern.

  If one denies the Deity and resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ, the Bible as the Word of God, etc., they probably should not use the evangelical title. A low view of Scripture would not make one a pillar in an evangelical church, just as adherent.
• 

  jgnat

  Evangelism is persuasive, but does not have to be rude.

  Agreed.

  Are you saying we should not preach the gospel to anyone and assume all godless people are actually saved?

  I prefer a respectful approach to wait until asked. I believe God is just always and even those who have not heard your particular message, but live with love, are secure.

  The problem is not with the Bible, but with bad interpretation/application. Evangelicals are not immune to this, but do much better than the cults do.

  To be better by degree is not a great endorsement. It’s also a judgement call on your part. You don’t know that Evangelicals are better at it.

  There is not a problem with obeying Scripture, but there is a problem in obeying a twisting of it.

  I’ve witnessed this myself as you try and justify a judging God with the God of love. You have ended up trying to show that a loving God can hate. It’s pure doublespeak; Orwell is rolling in his grave.

  …Armageddon… Your beef is with Paul and should not be with flakes who distort Pauline thought.

  Remember, I’ve spent as much time with evangelicals as you have. My observation is that an eager anticipation of the world’s end, and a seeking out of signs (poisons, violence) of decline, is bad for people. Eagerly looking forward to Christ’s return is fine, but from my observation, many evangelicals take the dark view I’ve outlined above.

  It is fight evil and promote good, not either/or.

  In your worldview, which is why I asked you how many gods live in your pantheon. You eagerly seek out enemies to conquer, which likely resonates with your personality. But in doing so, you make enemies out of fine people. The image I have in mind is Peter in the garden of Gethsemane, wildly waving his sword. You are gonna hurt someone.

  Good overcomes bad all by itself.

  Evangelicals have good and bad and a variety of beliefs and practices.

  It pays to take a good hard look once in a while. If you cannot critically examine your own beliefs, why would anyone want to follow? Look at the glazed-eye sheep in the Kingdom Hall. The brave few who break the spell take a good, long, hard look at what they believed and why.

  Too often I see you debating the Witness doctrine here, as if you are trying to purge any residue leftover from the ex-JW’s past. But most have critically reviewed their base beliefs far more than you will ever do. So in your message you are picking up tattered and discarded robes that your audience has no intention of picking up again.

  Ex-Witnesses leave for a wide variety of reasons, and have a wide variety of beliefs. You would be wiser to speak to individuals where they are at, rather than assume they carry a homogenous set of beliefs.

  Jesus and Paul were dogmatic about core truth without compromise.

  Core truth, I would take it, is John 3:16. Stop breaking it then, by battling your brothers here.