Do Christians Worship Different Gods?

Well, it seems to me that this is an attitude that would sit more easily with someone who thinks that gods don't exist. In that case the question of classifying gods becomes an anthropological one, and a god who created the world in six days and is a staunch Republican is different from one who didn't and isn't, just as one might say that Chinese dragons are different from European dragons.But if there really were such things as dragons, and which could be shown to be the origin of both sets of myths, then it would make more sense to say that the Chinese and Europeans had different ideas about the same thing.

The contrast provided through your comparison seems insightful although I have to offer my apologies as I seem to have been a bit misunderstood. I wasn’t referring to the early Yuhdean followers of Moshes' successor Joshua the militant conqueror, but rather Joshua (YahShua ha’Mashiach) The Anointed One (ie. early ‘christians’, etc.).Providing the school of thought which suggests they were culturally ostracized after having fled the 70 CE destruction of the 2nd Yirusalem temple and the Yuhdean province in general holds true (while adherents to Yosef Bar Kayafa’s Yuhdean orthodoxy waged jihad), value judgments can be made concerning what effects these two different views of the Yuhdean God had on the world view of those 1st century individuals.Those who refused the authority of the acting high priest Kayafas in favor of Joshua's (the Anointed One) admonitions found cultural denigration and religious persecution in one hand while palming continuous life in the other. Those siding with orthodoxy seem to have found pride going before destruction, and haughtiness before their fall.I may quickly agree that our theological subscriptions can play an integral role in the development of particular ideologies and it is those same ideologies which are often found shaping our actions to a large extent.One Love

GDR, obviously your somewhat of a Biblical novelist who does not understand the difference between the old dispensation of Judaism, the Levitical Law and Jehovah's intent to establish a nation which was to be his messianic nation where his coming messianic king would establish a kingdom of Jehovah on the earth and the new Christian church dispensation of salvation and grace being non-violent in all respects.The OT law and the OT commands for the Jews to violently wipe out heathenistic cultures in a tiny little spot on the planet and to protect that relative spot pertained to one relatively little group and that alone. It applied to the Jews and the land of Israel alone and to no other nation.Thus, over the millennia, the Jews have fought and died for that land which Jehovah gave them. They have never attempted to expand their territory outside of that promised land which was promised by Jehovah to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.Now, Jesus's first advent was to die for the sins of the people and call out for all who would follow him, enduring the suffering, rather than fight and war. Unlike Joshua, who had an entirely mission from Jehovah, Jesus advocated a total non-violent attitude among his disciples and followers.Jesus's 2nd advent, soon to come will be different. He, then, will come and destroy the armies of the world which will be assembled at Jerusalem to invade and destroy the Jews, so as for the Palestinians et al to come in and occupy. That is what Armageddon is prophesied to be about.

I agree but it just seemed to me that it might help the discussion along.

You were misunderstood due to my ignorance. Sorry. If it's ok with you I will keep using the name Jesus while acknowledging that your name is the accurate one. Jesus forecast the destruction of the 66-70 CE war. He said that this would be the result of launching a militant revolution. We are human and can fully understand the militant view point and would fully understand why His followers were ostracized when they rejected that approach. It took centuries, but the path of love and peace did eventually have an effect on the Romans. CS Lewis writes the one great sin is pride. For better or for worse.

So you are saying that God not only sanctioned but encouraged genocide in order that the early Jews could hold on to a piece of real estate. (How well did that work by the way?) You then also must agree that the quote from Deuteronomy was also from God and that God decreed that a rebellious child should be stoned by all of the men in the town. You also believe that God encouraged capital punishment for those who broke the Sabbath laws.Now however God tells us that all of that stuff is no longer valid and we are to love our neighbours as ourselves, and that we are to love our enemies.So what are we left with.1/ We have a god who changed his mind.
2/ We have a god who sanctions killing and destruction then, but says that the situation doesn't call for it right now. He'll get back to us if it becomes necssary again.
3/ We have a god who did what was necessary then, (apparently to no avail at least on an on-going basis) but with the new agreement he says it is no longer the route to go.
4/ We have a god who was misrepresented by the early Jews and has always maintained the his way for us is the way of love, peace, mercy etc.AbE I got up this morning and re-read this. Option 4 is badly worded. Jesus' whole teaching was based on the Hebrew Scriptures so there was a lot there that was right, and IMHO from God. However, as we still do today, there were those that twisted God's message to suit their own purposes. They didn't always get it right.I take option 4 and I assume you'll go with 3. Option 3 however still leaves us with a god that was in favour of genocide, the stoning of rebellious children, adulterers, (at least the female ones), and those that don't follow the sabbath laws.Let's for the sake of argument accept, (which I don't), that it was necessary that in order to keep the Hebrew nation holy by executing those that didn't follow the laws. Do you then still believe that God would sanction public stoning as a means of execution?Frankly I don't worship a god that would ever justify the things that we have been talking about. If that was actually the true nature of God then I think I'd just give it all a pass as I can't see the difference between heaven and hell. This is a complete misreading of the scriptures but that is off topic in this thread.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.Edited by GDR, : Option 4 required explanation

This topic reminds me of your old GOD, God, and gods argument.There are many different denominational chapters of Christianity, and quite frankly, several different perceptions of God as we have come to believe that He is.So perhaps a couple of questions to start a new day:1) Many would argue that we Christians do not worship different Gods as we collectively believe that there is but One. Our unsupportable defense is that God reaches us rather than we defining Him. Did you ever consider that this might be true, or were you always convinced that GOD proper was essentially unknowable?2) Does Born Again and "I am Saved" thinking prevent a fundamentalist/charismatic from actually doing what God wants, as written in the good book?

Yet they describe the "god" they worship, and all too often the descriptions do not match."Saved" and "Born Again" on the other hand have no connection to reality but are easy to sell. They are a great substitute for actually having to do anything worthwhile.

I don't like the term "saved" either as it has the implication that if you aren't saved as defined by the person using the term you are destined for Hell. I figure that is God's business and not mine. I think I'll just stick with the idea in Micah that God wants us to humbly love kindness and justice and let God worry about the rest.I actually like the term "Born Again" but I find that, IMHO, the term is overused and misused. I do believe that when we make a decision to become Christ followers, meaning a heart decision as opposed to a head decision, that there is a change in attitude in our dealings with others and in our outlook on life. At least that was my experience. It wasn't sudden or dramatic but just kinda happened. I believe it is of God and His spirit but certainly that is just my belief. A sceptic could no doubt make the case for it being psychosomatic but so be it.

I have no problem with "Born Again" as long as it is understood that it is something that you do every minute of every day, over and over and over again.

I agree that it isn't a one time occurence that's makes everything alright. I believe it is a life time of hopefully, becoming more and more in tune with the still small voice that has been planted inside you.

Really?! Really really? Because I can think of a few dubious ones.The New Testament is by no means a good moral guide, not by today's standards. It was an improvement upon the previous efforts of Jewish mystics, but no more. It does not compare well with the secular moral philosophy of the Greeks for example. Yes, I can understand that. I respect the fact that you seek to find value in Christianity, but I still think that the way you are going about it is innately fallacious. Only if that designer specifically designed it to look exactly as if it were natural. Again, to me, this sounds like rationalisation. But the people who worshipped them did not believe these gods to be evil, that is my point. Those people probably thought that sacrificing babies (or whatever) was harsh but fair. They thought their gods were good, even as they were doing evil.As far as I know, no-one ever believed in a god whose morality drastically differed from their own (outside of henotheistic models). The fact that Christian slave owners failed to recognise their own evil (and even went as far as to claim that God approved of slavery) would seem to refute this notion. There are many competing standards for "good" and religion does not seem to have done a very good job of defining better standards. You really don't see Wright's god as being substantially different from the god described in, say, the Nicene Creed? I think there is a big difference between them.One of the main reasons, I think, that Christians seem to worship so many gods, is this tendency to totally revamp the whole concept of god, and then pretend that nothing has changed. The distant god of modern Christian moderates is vastly different from the one early Christians would recognise, and unimaginably different from the one the Jews revered. Nonetheless, most Christians seem to want to treat them as being, at some level, the same entity. I think that such believers are in denial.Modern Christianity is as different a beast from ancient Judaism as one could possibly imagine and yet many believers seem to want to pretend that they are part of the same tradition. Better, in my opinion, to be honest and worship some new god, one that better serves modern needs. Of course then, believers wouldn't be able to make appeals to authority, based on ancient texts, so you lose a popular selling point, but at least you would have a more consistent god. You wouldn't have to do the dance of finding excuses for the excesses of Yahweh. In my view, the early Christians would have done better to simply ditch the horrible OT. Similarly, modern theists, with their vague, non-interventionist gods, would do better to ditch Christianity altogether and come up with a better system, one that doesn't require constant excuse making.Mutate and Survive

Why is that? It does sometimes seem that sceptics are very critical of those that read the Bible as having been word for word dictated by God, but then when someone else comes along that says that they believe that is not the way we are intended to understand the Bible then that isn't correct either. We Christians just can't win. How would you suggest that a Christian should understand the Bible? Not at all. I'm suggesting that the designer designed the natural so what else would it look like? I don't see it that way. I see human sacrifice as a way of appeasing gods that they feared, which is quite different than thinking it was a good god. From what I've read I don't think that the ancients attached a moral significance to their gods. They were just the way they were, and as I said it then became a question of appeasing them and of trying to get them on your side. Let's face it. Christianity has been used to justify all sorts of horrible things. It is like anything else that is good. It can be misused. In the final analysis the idea of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a standard that is hard to beat. I think you misunderstood me. Wright is agnostic. I am only saying that his views are not incompatible with either Christianity or atheism. I think that we have a tendency to make God in our own image. I also think that there is a tendency by all religions to get their religion tied up with their sense of nationalism. (God of course is a Canadian but we try to keep it quiet in our quiet humble way. ) I think that it is really important to read the Bible in its historical context. It isn't just a series of books containing timeless truths. I think we have to understand, (the Gospels in particular), with the mindset of a 1st century Jew, as best we can. I think that people like N T Wright in particular have been very effective in doing that. I strongly disagree with that. Virtually all of Jesus' teaching came from the OT. It is all there. The thing though is that there is a lot more there as well. It is a narrative and within that is mythology, revelation, history told with a cultural bias, metaphor, poetry etc. It is only when you read it in a way that I don't believe it was ever intended to be read do we run into problems. If we try to read it as if God dictated it word for word then we wind up with the difficulties that I outlined in the OP.

If there is a God He is indisputably British. This is just frankly inarguable.........

Ok, well, Jesus actually did come here to die for "me". So, yeah, it kinda is about us now isn't it? If not then who did Jesus actually come here and die a brutal death on the cross for? I don't follow. What do you mean? Jesus, again, came here for us because we needed a savoir. Yet, you think Jesus came here for Himself? That's fine, just do me a favor. Next time you go to work take a poll of all the born again Bible believing followers of Christ at your job, report back with results.Chuck77 writes: Huh? It's a quote from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself talking about the road to life or death. What are YOU talking about? Yeah, I know. Im talking about the God of the Bible, the one TRUE God. Who are you talking about?Listen, there are enough atheists here to argue with you if you even slightly believe in anything remotley outside of the norm. Im not here to bag on guys like you (or anyone for that matter). You asked a few questions and im just answering them as I would anyone.Im not anyone to judge a persons heart or beliefs all I do is go bye what the Bible says and filter it through that. If it doesn't fit, something is off. There are secondary issues that don't affect ones salvation like tongues, healings, prophecy etc etc.Repenting from your sins and being "saved", accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, living a life pleasing to Him with a new spirit and eternal life isnt' one of them.