If God exists, is there a problem with offerings to other gods?

[SalixIncendium]

being angry could be pettiness, but is not limited to it.
There is anger that is normal.

Is what is “normal” for gods the same as what is “normal” for humans?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I believe it's ok up to a certain degree within a strong partnership in a couple.

I don't have one, though.

But I hear people say "I want to be desired", which implies some sort of disappointment when the person goes or would go to another lover.

Yes, and that was the one case in which I gave the word "jealousy" some allowance of positivity.

However, there is a mindset to be reached even beyond that, within which one realizes that they are not in control of the other person, and that if they care for that person truly, then they would want for that person whatever that person truly seems to feel is best for themselves. Put a simpler way: if that person's decision is to no longer be with you, then who are you to say that they must stay? What authority do you truly have over their life and livelihood? You can only maintain your end of any agreement you may have, and hope that your demeanor, offering, support and love will do the job of keeping them by your side... and that is all they can hope for as well if their goal is to be with you. When both of you have those mutual goals, then that's what makes the relationship work. It may sound sterile, or austere - but after we strip away all the trappings of the romantic, is this not a fairly accurate description of what goes on between two people who have chosen to be "together?"

 

[Colt]

If I understand right, these two posts are the same



Let me cite the Golden Calf then.
In the Bible, for God it was just as bad as idolatry.
However, it was a sincere prayer to Yahweh himself. Yahweh detested it.

The Bible is a "golden calve" for those who believe God actually wrote it.

......"the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man." UB 1955

 

[Windwalker]

hw's it in sports? Can a player send another player off the pitch? A referee can. YOu couls ask the same questions here: sending people off the pitch is good of you're a referee but bad if you're a player?

Now you want equal rights for all? You can't have referees then. The first thing many sprtsmen would do is sending the referee off the pitch. You can't have a working world cup then.

------
You want equal rights with God? Here you go:
lets grant equal rights to humans in my comparison: every human that creates other humans and ensures their afterlife after their death... can go ahead and claim the same rights as his creator!

I'll make this simple. Jesus said, "Follow me". If God is violent towards those who don't do what he says, then if someone beats their wife, or children violently, aren't they following God's lead and the courts should respect what he did when he knocked the teeth out of his kids' mouths, or dashed them against the sharp rocks (Ps. 137:9)? God tells us to follow his example, and then sends someone to hell when they do?

A better analogy would be that of the police, not referees. Police are required to follow the rules of the game too. Just look at Derik Chauvin, now facing up to 40 years in prison for not following the rules we are supposed to. According to your argument, Chauvin should be viewed as a referee, and his murder of a black man is okay because he doesn't have to follow the rules himself?

Mr. Policeman tossed George Floyd out of the game permanently through murder. But he had the right to do that, because he had the authority to do so? Is that what you really believe?

 

[thomas t]

Nope, and it is sad that you have reached a guilty verdict prior to consideration of the facts in my opinion.

no, I did consider the facts here.

Not necessarily, there is no proof or even evidence for God in my opinion, faith is a gift from God that is not given to everyone. If she hasn't been given the gift and there is no evidence how is she to know better?
In my opinion.

I said in post #9 (which was directed to you and another poster) that it is my assumption she could have known, this was part of the underlying assumptions.

Coming from someone so keen to spread rumours about polytheists that they are liars and rumour spreaders just because their faith is different to yours I find ironic in my opinion.

I am not keen to spread rumors, and I did not spread rumors. There is no irony.

 

[thomas t]

Is what is “normal” for gods the same as what is “normal” for humans?

Jesus had normal emotions, so I conclude it makes sense God also has them.
If this is normal for him I can't say.

Yes, and that was the one case in which I gave the word "jealousy" some allowance of positivity.

However, there is a mindset to be reached even beyond that, within which one realizes that they are not in control of the other person, and that if they care for that person truly, then they would want for that person whatever that person truly seems to feel is best for themselves. Put a simpler way: if that person's decision is to no longer be with you, then who are you to say that they must stay? What authority do you truly have over their life and livelihood? You can only maintain your end of any agreement you may have, and hope that your demeanor, offering, support and love will do the job of keeping them by your side... and that is all they can hope for as well if their goal is to be with you. When both of you have those mutual goals, then that's what makes the relationship work. It may sound sterile, or austere - but after we strip away all the trappings of the romantic, is this not a fairly accurate description of what goes on between two people who have chosen to be "together?"

even if this were to make perfect sense, being jealous in relationships up to a certain degree also makes sense, I think. Limited to a certain time, jealousy makes perfect sense, I think.

 

[thomas t]

I'll make this simple. Jesus said, "Follow me".

Jesus said follow me as he was fully human. In that circumstance he said so. This does not mean we should pretend to be like God now, I think.
Jesus accepted God as the referee - Jesus also died at the cross - so should we do.

A better analogy would be that of the police, not referees. Police are required to follow the rules of the game too. Just look at Derik Chauvin, now facing up to 40 years in prison for not following the rules we are supposed to. According to your argument, Chauvin should be viewed as a referee, and his murder of a black man is okay because he doesn't have to follow the rules himself?

+

Mr. Policeman tossed George Floyd out of the game permanently through murder. But he had the right to do that, because he had the authority to do so? Is that what you really believe?

no and no.

The example with the referee still stands. No need to complexify things. We are the players, God is the referee.

 

[thomas t]

The Bible is a "golden calve" for those who believe God actually wrote it.

......"the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man." UB 1955

I don't agree here. Neither with the quote, nor with your initial phrase.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Jesus had normal emotions, so I conclude it makes sense God also has them.
If this is normal for him I can't say.

even if this were to make perfect sense, being jealous in relationships up to a certain degree also makes sense, I think. Limited to a certain time, jealousy makes perfect sense, I think.

At any rate, I am completely in agreement that the God portrayed in The Bible displays petty human emotions and seems to be pretty immature in a lot of ways. I consider my own understanding of what I can and cannot demand of another before I have overstepped to be greater than the God portrayed in The Bible. I have a better and more mature grasp of acceptable interaction than God does. Hands down. And your comments only further back me up on this.

 

[Colt]

I don't agree here. Neither with the quote, nor with your initial phrase.

You believe God wrote the Bible, you are loyal to that belief. You quoted God detesting sincere worship.

 

[thomas t]

At any rate, I am completely in agreement that the God portrayed in The Bible displays petty human emotions and seems to be pretty immature in a lot of ways. I consider my own understanding of what I can and cannot demand of another before I have overstepped to be greater than the God portrayed in The Bible. I have a better and more mature grasp of acceptable interaction than God does. Hands down. And your comments only further back me up on this.

ok, hands down, but I do hold that the Bible God did not act in an immature way.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus said follow me as he was fully human. In that circumstance he said so. This does not mean we should pretend to be like God now, I think.

This makes zero sense. We are supposed to love as God loves, forgive as God forgives, and so forth. The Lord's prayer comes in here, "Forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." But if it is fine for God to dash babies against the rocks, then shouldn't it be fine for his children to follow his moral example?

"God is Love". "Love works no ill". Beating your wife bloody, or dashing babies against sharp stones, is most certainly working ill. All of what you are doing is making excuses. And that ties exactly into that thread I started over this very topic, based around that thread "excuses, excuses".

This will be a good thread for you that addresses your rationalizations here exactly on point: How to Read the Bible, and Still be a Christian

 

[HonestJoe]

He did have emotions, normal ones... but no flaws. (this may count as a reply to you @IndigoChild5559 , too)
Emotions are not to be put into the same category as flaws, I think.
Limitations should not be put into the same category as flaws, either, I think.
Emotions and limitations yes. Flaws no.
This is how I see Jesus... God's incarnation, as I believe.

Yet again, I am talking about the depiction of God in heaven, not Jesus. This depiction predates Jesus.

Emotions will inevitably lead to flaws. They are what cause us to make illogical decisions. Anything subject to emotion will make some bad decisions as a consequence. Limitations is a more obvious contradiction since the God is depicted as all-powerful and all-knowing. It would be literally impossible for such a being to have limitations. So you still can't have it both ways.

 

[viole]

I think there is one.

This post is under the premise that God is real - I mean the Creator God as outlined in the Bible.
God gives ressources to a population out of love. If they use it for offerings to some gods that did not provide these things, it's wasting them, which would be impolite towards the (real) creator.

This is at least my stance on the matter.

My neighbors have a shrine. I don't know what god that is, however, I see it occupies:
- 1 m² of their location
- electricity, since there is constanly some light on it
- candles or similar
- there is even fruit on it - but I guess that they still eat it themselves, though, I might be wrong here.
- time. They diligently make this shrine look beautiful.
- time, as they need to go get the ingredients for that shrine.

So these are all resources stemming from the creator getting used for venerating some other god.

It depends.
If God exists, then God can have three mutually exclusive qualities:

1) He does not care what you offer to whom. In that case it is not wrong, just useless
2) God cares. But it does not need to be offered to Him. In that case, it is good to offer to Whomever
3) God cares that you offer only to Him. In that case it is still good to offer. At least you have a small chance to offer to the right one.

so, logically, there is nothing wrong to offer to any God.

That is the case if we do not know what God exists, if He exists. But if we assume that existence implies existence of God as in the Bible, then it is clear that the very first Commandment seems to rule out the safety of offering to the competition.

ciao

- viole

 

[thomas t]

This makes zero sense. We are supposed to love as God loves, forgive as God forgives, and so forth.
[...]

we are not supposed to kill as God does. God killed billions of people in restricting man's life span to 120 years.
No, we as humans should not play God and go ahead and restrict the life span any further. That's a no no.

It is a doctrine that says "be like God"... but it's not biblical as I see it. I prefer: "realize you are not God!"


So I do think my reasoning makes sense here.

But if it is fine for God to dash babies against the rocks, then shouldn't it be fine for his children to follow his moral example?
[...]

see above.

I'm not making excuses.
The persons who create humans and ensure their afterlife are entitled to punish, even if bloodshed is invovled. I stay with that.

edited to add blue part

 

[thomas t]

Emotions will inevitably lead to flaws.

according to you.

Limitations is a more obvious contradiction since the God is depicted as all-powerful and all-knowing.

according to you again.
A God that has limitless power can also design a covenant that's binding for him. It's as simple as that.
I propose God's restricted omnipotence. Regardless of what he is depicted by wise men...

 

[Windwalker]

we are not supposed to kill as God does.

So then we should not beat women and children either then, even though you said it's okay for God to do that? Then why cite God as a justification for men who are into wifebeating?

God killed billions of people in restricting man's life span to 120 years.

God created a system of life where there is a necessary cycle of life and death in order for it to exist. That is not "God killing". I do not believe there was any time in actual earth history where any species never died. That's not actual history, but rather symbolic. You find that same "fall from paradise" theme throughout the world's creation myths. While rich and meaningful in symbolism, they are of course not reflective of the actual system of life as it has been from the very beginning in actual cosmic history.

I'm not making excuses.
The persons who create humans and ensure their afterlife are entitled to punish, even if bloodshed is invovled. I stay with that.

So, again, you think that if a husband provides for his wife, like God, that entitles them as their "owner" to do whatever they please with them. Where does free will choice fit in here in either case?

 

[thomas t]

So then we should not beat women and children either then, even though you said it's okay for God to do that? Then why cite God as a justification for men who are into wifebeating?

?
never did that.

That is not "God killing"

restricting a lifespan that used to be some thousand years to 120, according to the Bible, is an act of killing, as I see it. Restricting a life span is just that.

I do not believe there was any time in actual earth history where any species never died. That's not actual history, but rather symbolic. You find that same "fall from paradise" theme throughout the world's creation myths.

for me, Genesis is truth.
There was no death in the Garden, according to the Bible.

So, again, you think that if a husband provides for his wife, like God, that entitles them as their "owner" to do whatever they please with them.

... like God. No husband is able to do that, though.
No husband is able to create his wife, ensure her afterlife, let the sun shine and so forth...

 

[stvdv]

This post is under the premise that God is real - I mean the Creator God as outlined in the Bible.

Did you speak with God?
Did God tell you personally what is meant?

 

[thomas t]

Did you speak with God?
Did God tell you personally what is meant?

my personal relationship to God is not the topic of this thread and I don't answer this. I want to stay on topic.