I remember it.

As far as I know only one other contemporary god is mentioned, and has since been interpreted as an angel or demon. There are some relics in the Old Testament that hark back to the days before the Israelites became properly monotheistic. Other gods are often discussed as though they are real. The Israelites just weren't supposed to worship them.

Just bear in mind, pious dork that I am, the Bible is kind of an impenetrable boring tome for me (not nearly as much as the Qu'ran, mind you, that thing reads with the excitement of a guide to opening a small business). So I'm paraphrasing something that another pious dork told me, and his description was just as, if not moreso, paraphrased and obtuse.

I think this is one of those things where it might depend on which 'translation' you've read. I'm also being as vague about it as medically possible. I'mma check back with my friend and then quote the whole thing. A lot of Biblical mythology (because that's what it is, a mythos for lessons on how to behave) is pretty darn cool.

I'm going through a weird in-between phase right now.


That's the spice. The description I was given specified a sort of heavenly roundtable discussion with some other deities.

So that's why you're so confused.

Ba'al, Moloch and Asherah are referenced in the Old Testament as 'false gods', Moloch is also referred to as a demon I think.

@MM - I spent the longest time thinking the Devil was winning.

That's weird that you mention Moloch. I just made a reference to Moloch on Facebook about an hour ago. It was actually a line from the Allen Ginsberg poem Howl.

Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness!

Well he's found his way into cult society. To appease him you must sacrifice babies. If you're into conspiracy, George Bush was involved in some Moclohian ritual.

I'm just saying that it was weird timing.

I’d say that actually fits into BM’s argument pretty well.

I'd like to hear someone explain how you can have a God who possesses the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence and still have other Gods.

Yahweh doesn't leave a metaphysical gap for other beings that aren't His servants or other personifications of Him. It's not like with pantheons, because Poseidon can whack Zeus on the head if he wants. Nobody can whack God on the head.

are you seriously telling me that gabriel couldn’t take god down

because gabriel is a stone cold mofo

Sooooo religion doesn't make sense, huh? I never would have realized that on my own.

How could different aspects of the same god not know what's going on in its other aspect's mind? How often does Jesus have to question god, at one point even asking why god has forsaken him?

Why can't one god serve another god?

Furthermore, while dogma claims the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence, the Christian god does not exhibit all three. That would be in conflict not only with reality as we observe it, but within Christian doctrine as well. The discovery of this is one of the things that drives people to leave seminary school in disgust. Theology is all about figuring out ways to hide this truth.

I've always wondered how an omniscient god could ever possibly become angry. If you're omniscient, and you know the end result of every sequence you set it motion then what in the hell do you have to be angry about? You did this, and you knew it was going to happen. Is he crazy maybe?

Because Jesus is also human. This has to be true for his sacrifice to make any kind of symbological sense.

Also because religion makes little sense.

That absolutely depends on how far you want to stretch the 'Greater good' angle. It's not logically inconsistent that God is all three, we may just be too morally immature to understand how.

I know very little about the old testament (Other than it doesn't really work as anything other than a long series of moral messages which definitely don't mesh with the New Testament), but I feel that a modern Christian theologian would be obliged to say the bits where God got angry were post hoc historical reports by religious leaders who for whatever reason wanted the people to believe that God was wrathful.

Also it doesn't really make sense.

Maybe he planned to be angry.

So we are presented with an idea that doesn't make sense, are told that is because we can't understand it, but expected to trust that it is true anyway. The problem is us, not the idea, but the idea can solve that problem.

In other words, the idea's own incompetence is presented as the case that we are sick, while that idea proposes itself as the cure.

I didn't say it was a good explanation, did I?

I think that the end result of all of these questions is going to be that it doesn't really make sense. But I guess it doesn't really have to. If it made sense there would be a lot less to talk about.

And there's no shortage of things to talk about. I stumbled upon this earlier, and it's great. Cleese and Palin are, anyway. The other two turn out to be rather terrible human beings.

I like the stern religious debate on a show with sexual scenes as soon as the opening titles.

Like a gentle parent being stern with their kids; I always assumed it was just for show.

I mean, I doubt God actually cares about pigs, he just doesn't want his ant farm dying of porcine meat poisoning.

It's not a specific rule for pigs. There's more otherwise-edible food that Jews and Muslims can't eat than they can. They can't eat elephants either.

But they can eat giraffes. If they can figure out where on the neck to perform the shechitah. And reach it. And generally restrain the animal, which is pretty big.

The amount you think I don't know has just slipped into "concerning".

I didn't think you didn't know it. It's just interesting when I see people propose trichinosis as the justification for a dietary law that also rules out camels.

The closest to what you're describing that I can think of is the bit in Genesis where God says "Let us make man in our own image". Most people interpret that as either being a royal 'We', or that He'd already created angels and used them as a planning committee.

Actually, the main issue is just getting a giraffe legally. The thing about finding the right point on the neck is a myth; cutting anywhere on the neck is fine. Also, we have ladders. And rope.

Reminds me of a conversation that I had with a friend a while back in which he asked me why god banned wearing clothing of mixed cloth (interpretted in Judaism as referring to a combination of wool and linen). I told him that the only known reason was 'Because God said so'. He countered that all biblical laws had a reason; for instance, banning pigs was due to trichinosis, so I explained that that was a human-interpreted explanation coming after the fact. Most of the laws in the bible aren't explained. They're just 'Because God said so'.

He's either all knowing, so he knew he would get angry. Or he is not all knowing, in which case... well I dunno but it must be bullshit in some way.

But assuming he is all knowing; because he felt like shouting at something, he set in motion a series of events that would piss him off so much he had to kill everything, only to then blame it on the humans.

Why anyone would want to pray and worship a sadistic piece of shit like that is completely beyond me.

It's funny how wrath counts as one of the Seven Deadly Sins for us, mortals.

Aw, I was hoping to impress you with my knowledge of the word "shechitah."

Though according to Rabbi Yosef Kafich, the main problem is that "at $10,000 per kilo, it would be ba'al tashchit!"

I don't know what that means.

I was very impressed. *pats on head*


It's been a while since my religious education, but from memory ba'al tashchit (which for some reason I thought was 'tashlit', but whatever) is wasteful destruction of useful things. A quick Google concurred with that definition.

The evolution of a topic!

Also, i only posted this topic 'cos these forums have always attracted a wide range of people with differing views...and it's always interesting to dip my toes in these views and splash about in them.

...before hastily retreating into the shadows to dry myself off and sob in muted disgust.

2002? you must be, like, a million years old.