How is Christianity Monotheistic?

You know nothing. Virtue angels? Michael is a virtue, so is every single archangel, including the infamous former Lucifer (knowledge).

YHWH
Lord: Michael & Savior: Jesus
General Angels: Michael, Gabriel, Rapheal, etc.
Warrior Angels (seraphim): This is the largest order.
Parent Angels (cherubim):

The seven stars where chosen by the chief angels to be the seven helpers to the seven churches which are Bravery, Faith, Hope, Science, Valor, Knowledge, and Jesus.

I believe in God. Let me ask about this.
Me: Is their hierarchy in Heaven?
YHWH: Only naturally.
Me: ????
YHWH: We have it only because it was naturally formed by the naturally superior angels.
Me: Were angels made in sevens and put into orders?
YHWH: No, I started with one, and made another. First came bravery, then patience. The archangels originally where Faith, Hope, Science, Knowledge, Valor, and two others my son hasn't learned of in this life. I know, but I can not communicate these qualities to him because he doesn't know the words from them, he will be reminded. On top of that those two archangels gave up their position of authority in present day they have temporarily been replaced by Confidence, and Hate.
Me: Lucifer is not an archangel.
YHWH: No, but he was.
Me: Who is the seventh then?
YHWH: You will figure it out.
Me: Cool, deuces.
YHWH: Go eat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Joseph was Jesus' father, his biological father. There was a law in that country forbidding anyone having sex with a betrothed person. That same law applies to God as well. So no one was allowed to have sex with Mary other than Joseph. But for some odd reason she became pregnant before they had sex. There is nothing saying that weren't actually living together or even sleeping together at the time.
99% of people would not be able to do that. But that was their culture they didn't do it till they were married.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Me: Who was the husband of mother Mary, and biological father Jesus Christ?
YHWH: Judas Thaddeus, born in 24 b.c.
Me: What about Joseph?
YHWH: The grandfather of Judas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any religion can assert that it is monotheistic. Outsiders may argue, but that is irrelevant.

 

Yazata-

I know no one read my post but, even if we define a god as a powerful Supernatural Entity, then angels woudl not be gods. Nor would the Greek gods that populated Olympus.

None of those beings were axctually Supernatural. I know you lot will think I am daft for saying that but the word "Supernatural" has a specific definition, and has never actually included Angels since Angels are not thought of as possessing the power to overcome Natural Laws. They are as much a part of the Created Order as cats, dogs, and humans. They cannot work Miracles and cannot superscede the limits of Physical possibility.

The idea that they are Supernatural is a modern inovation, but its bad Philosophy and bad Theology to classify them as such.

It is also incorrect to say peopel have beleived in Supernatural beingshave almost always been beleived in by those callign themselves Monotheists. In fact, even the Polytheists never accepted a Supernatural being. The concept of the Supernatural as we hold it today has only been around for 300 or so years, and the original word and concept is from Midaeval Scholastics who, again, said only God was Supernatural, and even that was debated. No one thought that Angels were Supernatural, or Souls, or anythign else, they were simply part of the Created order and thus prt of the Natural world. The term originally applied only to God because God is not subject to Natural Laws.

 

Depends on who you talk to really, for example Catholics believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit being one, I'm not sure about their stand on Mary though...

I'm Mormon and we believe in the Trinity, with the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit being three separate beings. We actually believe the Father and the Son having physical manifestations: bodies, instead of being pure spirits which is what we believe the Holy Spirit is.

I'm not very good with scripture and all, so I can't make an accurate statement about my church's stance, but in the nutshell what we believe is they are all perfect beings with the same purpose, therefore they are more like one organization then one person.

You get what I'm saying right?

We believe those three are the only Gods if you will. I didn't memorize the Bible I read it and understand it, but I don't memorize or quote the specific details because I believe the Bible is consisted of metaphors and parables instead of literal things, for example I have a copy of the Theory of Life by Darwin on my main bookshelf. But I'll make an exception this time, the Ten Commandments stated "No Gods before me", we pray to God the Father through Jesus Christ with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Also, if I remember correctly, the word God have been used in plural in the Bible before.

As for Mary, we believe she is a great woman, but nothing more. We believe Apostles and Prophets to be very important and great servants of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but they are human. We believe the definition of "saint" to be righteous disciples of Christ, thus we call ourselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we believe everyone that follows the gospel of Jesus Christ and live righteously to be a saint. We believe Angels to be messengers, but not Gods, they act with the power and authority of God the father, but are not Gods themselves.

As for those "supernaturals" we believe them to be acting in the name of God (before Jesus was "born") the Father and with the power and glory of God.

Now, that stands for Mormons, I can't say for any other sects.

 

There is God, his helpers, and man. Man was once his helpers, and we were sent to this world to be tested at the dawn of homo sapiens, or shortly after through the incarnation of Adam, and the Holy bloodline still in tact today. My opinion, of course.

The Father is all, he is none. He black, and he is white, so he is grey. He is all, and nil, so he is as much some as he is all. The son's of God are angels, the Son is Yeshua who is embodied first in spirit, then as a man. God does not have embodiment because he does not need it. The Father is the creator, the Son is he who will inherit all, and the holy spirit is how we did it.

Perfect by design, corrupted by free will, 1/3 of them or so. Taking simple observations tell me that number resembles good and evil on earth if you know what your looking for.

Jesus, and the spirit were created all the same as you and I, if you take my opinion on it.

The sons of God, man, we are gods. Yes, barring Jesus before The LORD is a sin.

The Virgin Mary was even more infamous than the great little Mary Magdelan. Yes, a great woman, but so so much more. The importance of both the Mother and the Bride are incomparable to almost anyone.

As is above, so is below. A prophet on earth would have been ordained a prophet in Heaven. I believe myself to have the very word of God stored in my mind, to give unto you or any who will believe me, at the very least hear me. Those are my beliefs. How would you respond to such a claim? How would you think of me when I slandered your false prophet Joseph Smith as a liar, a racist, and a ignoramus?

I am who I am. I am a son of God, and I am a man, that is all I have to say on the mater.

All is in the name of the God, as he created all, but he will not take credit for any but initial creation fore it was done by the muscle on your backs and the strength of your minds (that he gave you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

The rest of your post is theology and is good at that. But the statement above is the problem due to which science and religion can never just let is be and go on their own ways. I guess you use mind as a mental analogy for the bodily soul, but psychology and neurobiology and evolutionary biology all claim knowledge to the same [mind] while the brain is more and more understood every passing day.
When a theist claims god giving something to us [of which your statement is just a minor example], they tread on science, which has only recently claimed the ground for itself. This leads to the familiar struggle of naturalism and scientism against supernaturalism and theology. What do you suggest be done about this [general] issue?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I love science, it makes sense. Its a system of things that once were believed, and are now known to exist that judges the authenticity of anything. I hate religion, it goes against the God I believe in and know of in my head.

The mind is a palpable illusional created by the illusion that you ever had a "mind".

There isn't a mind gland, yes I see mind, and soul as one in the same.

Not me. What do you know?

The Koi fish pond. Science was created on the faith that things had meaning, and faith is constantly empowered on the knowledge of the world. The issue is you are judgmental, and I will get on your case about that because I know it to be bad. The issue is the religionist, and supernaturalist is they are judgmental and I will get on them for that. I find my brethren all the same at church as in a science lab. The two fish will do their dance until all is known, one of the known thoughts to be keep swimming, just living is a prize.

I plead to you, we can not know of God. If there is one he made this so. Science men, keep doing your science. Faithful, be faithful to your death. Knowledgeable, keep your knowledge to yourself. Knowledge tells me that you can have knowledge of evil if you seek it, and there are evil men who know not how to be evil, I beg keep thy knowledge and let it grow to something palpable you can share. It is yours, and only yours until you share it. Science men, know, you have not achieved science of all in this world, you can not claim God does not exist fore if he does not exist we are looking for nothing, something that can make itself nothing if it does exist. The faithful will be proven to be right when time comes to pass. With the knowledge that some already posses, that the men of science work tirelessly to obtain in a scientific manner. A scientific way to approach God is to not look. The koi pond keeps spinning. Faith came before science, period. Then comes knowledge. The two-way mirror.
http://rightyaleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/two-way-mirror.jpg

 

AAQ-

Actually its not a conflict at all, and the whole idea that Science and Religion are art odds is another popular but outdated and wrong claim.


Most Theologians do not really reject Science and Naturalism as you think, and simply saying that the Mind is a Gift from God ( which is capitalised) doesn’t mean that the Mind must be Supernatural and thus removed from Scientific considerations.

In fact, there are entire Schools of thought in Theology dating back Centuries that says God most often acts via Nature, and some even state he exclusively works Via Nature and Natural Law. The idea that this is Religion treading on the domain of Science is thus nonsense. It is also itself odd as “Religion got there first” in this mythos so its really Science that’s the interloper, presuming the two things are separate and hostile.


If God gave is the Natural world in and of itself, and we describe it as a Gift from God, that is not saying the Natural World is Supernatural is it? Neither should anything else be.

Not that it maters, as if I actually repeat what I said Earlier I’ll just be ignored again. Really nothing is Supernatural anyway except for God, and even that is debatable, as some Theologians say God is a Natural, as opposed to Supernatural, entity.

 

Well said.
I agree that science is the one that has claimed ground that was formerly of religion, but it has done so because its theories and models were more fitting than the religious one. A god in the nature, working through natural law sounds like spinoism or deism, and I have no problems with either of them.

 

God is natural law, its his laws. Laws you once read.

 

AAQ-

You aren’t agreeing with me. You are for one thing still seeing Science and Religion as opposing, hostile forces, both comparing to offer explanations. That’s a part of the popular, but Historically defunct Conflict Thesis, created by John Draper and Andrew White. The Truth is of course more complex and less simplistic than people had Religious explanations made up out of nothing till Science came along and offered better ones. In fact, that idea makes Science and Religion the same thing, even though its purpose is to show how Science is superior to Religion. Once you reduce the entire topic of Religion down to nothing more than an attempt to explain things, and say that Science is nothing more than an attempt to explain things, then it’s really not justifiable to say that Science is different from Religion. Any Religious Idea that Science could discredit would be no more non-scientific than previous Scientific Theories that were accepted as fact that have been disproven. Even the methods for Gathering the information to postulate the ideas would rest on Observation. Well, that is unless you want to also use the commonly believed but utterly ridiculous idea that Religious beliefs were just invented out of thin air, and never had any thought added, which goes right up there with the idea that Religions never correct ideas or change over Time as an oft repeated nonsense.

That said, your claim that a god who works through Nature and Natural law is more like Deism or Spinosism is absurd. I mean, I realise that you aren’t use to actual Theological thought, which is why I am being ignored when I point out that Angels are not Supernatural beings, but the Truth is, no, its not. Most gods in History have been seen as Natural, not Supernatural in their own existence, yet neither Deism nor Spinoza’s Philosophy could apply to them. Take as a prime and non-Christian example the Greek Pantheon. The Greek gods were described by the Poets as vast in power, but not unlimited. They were also not understood as Supernatural beings who existed in a Supernatural world with Supernatural powers, who existed separately and apart from the Natural World. Rather, the Greek gods were understood as the personifications of Natural Phenomenon. They were literally the Spirit of those forces. Note, I said of, not behind. Poseidon was not simply the god of the Sea, he was the Sea. His Violent and unpredictable personality is itself in turn how men understood the Sea to be. Helios may have Driven the Sun in the Sky with his Chariot, but the word also means “sun’ and Helios was as much the Sun itself as he was the god of it. Demeter was the force of life behind all Vegetation. The gods were Immortal, but if they could be killed it would not have been like on Hercules and Xena, the thing they were god of would also disappear. Even things like Sexual arousal and longing or Warfare whose gods were Aphrodite and Ares respectively were ultimately just Personifications of those forces men and women actually felt and personally experienced.

The Ancient Greeks were not Deists, but the gods worked via Natural Laws and Natural constraints, and did not actually possess any Supernatural abilities.



This brings us back to Christianity. Even many Christian Theologians past and present have rejected the Idea of God being understood as Supernatural. Some would posit that God has specified Limits, such as Process Theology, while others would Identify God as the Source of Nature and thus better Understood as a Supreme Natural force as opposed to being separable from Nature. Either way you go with it though, neither view is actually like Deism, and while they may be compatible to Spinoza’s Philosophy in what I just said, I could name any number of specific ideas utilised by Theologians who made these arguments that would contradict Spinozism. EG, some who believe that God is not Supernatural but instead the Supreme Principle of Nature would still hold that God can suspend what we understand as the Regular Natural Laws, they would just contend that as God is the Source of Nature to begin with this is itself a Natural process. Its just aa Superior Natural process overriding an inferior one. That is not like Spinoza at all.


Or look at the Theology of Paul Tillich. Would you really describe him as a Deist? Or perhaos you think Tillich was a Spinozan? It would be obvious to anyone who read his work that he was neither.

No, I am afraid you aren’t agreeing with me. I am afraid you don’t understand what it is that I am saying at all.

 

I get it. Sorry, but yes, I have spent most of my time on science and informal logic; I have not yet learned much about theology. I did know about the greek gods - but I thought todays' theists would hardly consider them gods at all.

 

I think that historically, they have often been at odds. Maybe not always full-frontally, since religion and science have different goals and objects. But they do seem to have worked at cross-purposes much of the time in their efforts to understand the world -- in terms of facts asserted, methods utilized and the psychological virtues that each of them emphasizes.

It would seem to be awfully difficult for theologians to embrace naturalism, if we define that word as meaning something like...

Belief in such things as God, angels, heaven, spirits, hell, demons and so on would all seem to stretch naturalism well beyond its breaking point.

I agree with you that most theologians don't propose to get rid of science entirely. Most of them think that it's an excellent tool for understanding the physical realm. (They use cellphones too.) But they also believe in something fundamentally different and incomparably higher than the physical realm, they believe that they have received historically unique revelations from this higher mode of being, and they believe that those revelations take precedence over anything that science can possibly say.

You're apparently trying to collapse the creator/creation distinction together with the natural/supernatural distinction and then treat them as being one and the same. I don't think that making that move would improve our understanding of intellectual history.

I do agree with you (if I understand you correctly) that people in other cultures and in other historical ages have sometimes conceived of these kind of distinctions in ways that are very different than our own. I think that it's very important to keep the history of ideas and conceptual diversity in mind and to remain aware of the danger of projecting our own concepts into the minds of people who thought of things differently than we do.

Certainly people everywhere have traditionally believed that many unseen magical and spiritual powers are at work in nature, without clearly distinguishing those powers from nature and removing them en-masse off to another transcendental realm. But that doesn't necessarily imply that they didn't believe in heavenly realms or that miracles and prodigia weren't seen as the manifestations of heavenly powers down here on our plane.

I guess that for many of the ancients and medievals it was kind of a continuum. They sometimes used images such as a ladder or the concentric heavenly spheres, the lower end here on earth and the higher end representing being's highest ultimate principle. Each rung/sphere is imagined as a state of being (and typically consciousness as well). The ontological chasms implicit in both the modern science-influenced understanding of the natural/supernatural distinction and in the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic creator/creation distinction are replaced in this view by kind of an incremental continuum of spiritual ascent. The Jhanas of Indian meditation are another illustration of that kind of idea. There's still a vast ontological and religious difference between top and bottom, but the division between them is no longer clearly drawn.

 

No it isn't. God IS natural, more natural in fact.

Unless its all naturally impossible for us to do divine things on earth for some naturally divine reason.

Never ever ever ever will we get rid of science.

 

I don’t think Science and Religion are at odds at all, and I also reject Goulds Separate Majesteria and the idea that they have different goals and methods. In fact, one of the very few things I agree with Dawkins on is that the claims Religions make are Scientific in nature. God’s existence, while it cannot be clearly proven or disproven at this point to absolute scientific satisfaction, is still a matter of objective Reality. Either God exists, or he does not exist.

Every Time there is a “Science VS Religion” debate, it is either a Historical case that is not based on real History but legend such as Columbus supposedly standing up to the Church and saying the Earth was round whilst they say it was Flat, a case that simply never happened, or else the real problem is Ethical such as in the Abortion debate, and rarely is there ever an actual Science and Religion conflict. The only real one I can think of is Evolution and Creation. Even there, though, when we strip it of the terms “Science’ and “Religion’ all we have are two camps who have differing beliefs about how life emerged. One may say the Creationists are not Scientific, and are instead Religious, but the overall object is the same. One can’t seriously claim their goals differ, or even their methods. Both hold to a belief in how life emerged and both want this belief spread to others. The motives differ from individual to individual. Still, both Evolution and Creation, to me, are Religious ideas. I say this not as a mean to “drag Evolution down to my level”, I am not a Creationist. What I mean is, Religion is actually defined as a Set of beliefs about the Nature, Cause, and ultimate meaning of our Existence. Religions exist to answer the basic questions about our world around us and who we are. Instead of seeing Religion as stories told to explain the natural phenomenon primitive man saw around him, before the Advent of Science, I see Science as nothing more than Mans knowledge advancing and modifying the stories we tell. Science is thus a tool that helps shape Religion, and the Theories of Science become Religious Mythology ( in the True sense of the term, not the common idea of Mythology as made up stories.)

Evolution is simply a Creation narrative, no different than any other. In a way, It isn’t really different from the Creation account in the Bible the Creationists use, or the Hindu Veda’s version of Creation, or that OF THE Japanese Shinto Religion. All of them are designed to explain how we got here and, in some way, who we are. They give us a past, and thus a sort of grounding. They provide us with a part of the question of who and what we are. So, even if someone says Evolution is different because its Science, the end result remains the same. It’s a story that tells us where we came from. It serves the same purpose as a Creation narrative would in Holy writ, and is even considered as Sacred, or at least treated as such, by some.


I actually came to this Forum to present 12 Essays, modified for this message board, to see if actual scholarship in Theology could be imparted into common discussions about this topic. I decided to post some of the ideas beforehand so the ideas won’t be totally out of left field.



However, I often find it difficult to discuss these things on the Internet. Someone on a separate Atheist site told me why, though he didn’t realise how I’d take it. He said that we need to all define the terms the same way; else we aren’t really discussing the same things. I agreed, but I did challenge him on why we should use the definitions he employed, and why we should frame the debate based around his understanding of what specific words mean. Of course I was told, as usual, that my definitions of words like Religion, or Supernatural, or God are all novel and I use some special definitions that are not the normal ones and generally it’s claimed that I just made them up, never mind that I cite actual Theologians to back up my claims.

As someone who has studied Science and who has studied Religion, and as someone who, importantly, has studied History, I really cannot abide a lot of the misconceptions in any of these fields, but at the Same Time it prevents me from finding much use for Internet discussions. Where would I post? Christian Message boards hate me as they are generally run by those who don’t know the Sciences they often d\condemn, and now in America the bulk of Christian internet sites are run by Politically Motivated Evangelicals who neither know Science or History and just use the Religion they claim to adhere to to drape their own ideas in Authority, without questioning anything. Meanwhile, the Atheists do the same thing with Science. Most are Humanists, and most simply blindly repeat the same arguments and ideas but claim to be Freethinkers and drape their ideas in the Authority of Science or Reason. However, rarely is the discussion really about the actual study and implications of the Ideas.

So, I came here to ease my way into a few discussions, then present the essays and to see what happens with them.

 

Why do you use this name? The Bible identifies his name as IHCOYC (Uncial Greek) or Iesous, which has transliterated into English as Jesus. Do you not recognize the New Testament, which is Greek, as the authority for giving his name? If so, why?

Is this Jesus also Yeshua?

"Sons of God" occurs in Genesis, referring to a (pagan) ancient Phoenician belief in many gods (pantheism or polytheism).

How are humans gods, and how does this not violate the First Commandment?

Does the strength of our minds include the ability to read and comprehend the works of experts who might disprove some of your religious ideas?

 

At first glance I thought I saw Koine, the Greek by which we know the name Iesous (Jesus), not Yeshua. How strange. What in the world do you mean about Koi - do you have a water garden (as in Japan)?

Also, how do you "get on them" for being judgmental, without being judgmental yourself?

 

All I know Jesus Thaddeus (translate it however you want) was the Messiah, the one and only.

I would never stand before the Father, im a god. Now what?

Of course, this goes both ways, I hope you know that. Saying a master of faith can give you a deeper understanding of life through him telling you the numberless possibilities of a all powerful being, talking about YHWH of course.