Is Christianity truly a monotheistic religion?

[kahljorn]

"We/everything are God's self awareness"

Cooli Fooli. I disagree on part of the "Trying to figure things out" part, though. Seems to prickly pie, Indicates there is something to figure out, indicating an end to conceptual usefulness in that fashion, which may very well be the dark truth of our trusts-- a final shot and a final breath?
I tend to imagine we are more the summary of omniscience and thus slowly steer the evolutionary curve of the universal flow and algorithm. A certain esoteric, it is true. A combined echelon of our thoughts reaps universal rebirth when the arcitecture of the structure crumbles into itself embracing the need to reestablish foreign looms for carpet and tile.

[Vibecrewangel]

But if there are infinite aspects to figure out then the search will go on.....well.....infinately.
Which I think would be fairly close to your evolutionary curve idea.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Mr. NumberGuy -

Nice. I've always thought of Satan as an employee of the All Mighty.

Vibe,

Have you ever read the Incantations Of Immortality series by Pier Anthony? It describes the abstract concepts like Death, Time, War, Satan, ect as part of a huge staffed bureaucracy and shows through a kind of fantasy/parody how each came to their job and what that job is.

[Vibecrewangel]

As usual I haven't

Though it has been added to the ever growing reading list.......

I think you have been the biggest contributor to that list lately. :P

[Abcdxxxx]

Supafly - What are you talking about? Every Torah is the same. To the dot. Hand copied from one original Torah on to big rolls of fresh lambs skin paper. Every Torah is an exact duplicate. The only time you will ever see changes is in a translation.

"Hebrew version" means it's in the language of Ancient Hebrew.... meaning it has to be translated even amongst those who speak fluent Hebrew. There are words, and accent marks that only appear in the Torah. The ideas and meaning behind the words themselves are also open to translation. None of these correct the King James version...because it's just a pre-existing version, so there's nothing to correct. King James didn't have any effect on the bible that Jews use.

Of course it matters who translates it... but there isn't a Yeshiva in the world that can study the bible without some form of "translation"...and that's reading it directly from the Hebrew itself. I've read it in Hebrew, and I can tell you that when I read it in English, or you read it in Greek, it's not the same. Language differences are huge.

[kahljorn]

"But if there are infinite aspects to figure out then the search will go on.....well.....infinately.
Which I think would be fairly close to your evolutionary curve idea."

That would destroy the purpose of the curve. The curve would effect current ideas and conceptions as well, whilst the curve would be designated by the eccentric and insane. As intrum omni times would congregate together. They would peekish eachother, otherwise it wouldnt be paradoxical enough to fit. There has to be the factor of friccccction.

Flim to the flam! I don't like the word "God".

[Supafly345]

Abcdxxxx- I have not read the Torah for I am not an Orthidox Jew. I'm not a Jew at all for that matter. I know that the Jewish people believe that it is important to read the original translation, but I do not. But I will believe everything you say about it. (Just don't go on and on about your belief system and expect me to know what you are talking about.) After reading through everything you have said I am pretty sure that my personal position is not too terribly far off from mine though (If you exclude the obvious one's of course).

Let me comment about your thinking that every Torah is exactly the same though: Yes, you are right about that, today maybe. But when all there was to tranfer with was the lambskin and ink human error was destined to alter it. Alter it many times. Someone misses a word, so the next person fills it in. A mistake with spelling could be one of a few words. Soooo, the closer you get down the line to the original copy you get, the more accurate your book becomes. And the Old Testement (Torah) didn't come as one large work. No, it was put together from many different one's, and that leaves even more room for faulties. You really can't deny this (we mess things up). I am sure it is very accurate today though.

You are right about translation mix ups. But I have always been referring to the Bible. You seem to keep thinking I am talking about the Torah. I have never read the Greek version of the Torah or the Old Testement. The Greek version of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint. The Greek version of the new Testement is simply called "The Greek Bible." So when I talk about the Greek Bible that is what I have been talking about. I personally think that in today the New Testament is much more important than the Old. But I may seek to read the Torah someday now if I feel the urge to go through that much trouble.

I love to learn different perpectives of the same view though. But what we both seem to be saying is that older is better. I would like to talk about the Torah with you sometime in a easier setting.

[kahljorn]

In my opinion the "Torah Portion" of the bible is the only part worth reading, the rest is full of pretentious assholes and brown-nosers.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

In the Bible, it is read that "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7) God's sun and rain pour on the good and evil alike and make both weeds and wheat grow.

So, does that sound like the typical Cristian belief in God? Didn't think so.

I think that what this passage is getting is that opposites are necessary to define each other. Example: black/white, good/evil, God/Devil. Moreover, not only does Satan define what God is (i.e. everything Satan is NOT), Satan is necessary to complete the whole. An interesting dichotomy but not monotheism I don't think.

[Abcdxxxx]

a) the torah, and the bible are the same thing. the collected volumes of the five books of moses.

b) you don't have to be an orthodox jew to read the torah

c) torah's are duplicated the same way fine art work in a museum is duplicated. by hand, slowly. they take a looong time to make. a mistake means starting over and discarding the work. you have to be a scholarly rabbi to copy a torah. they cost $15,000-$20,000 for a new one. many of the torahs in use are actually centuries old. there is no difference between the text of an ancient torah or a modern torah.

d) I haven't said anything about my belief systems, but thanks for the warning. maybe you should stop talking about "beliefs systems" yourself since you're doing such a botched job of it.

e) the additions to the torah are called the talmud, and the midrash, and they contain the various addendums, and oral add ons you mentioned. the actual torah hasn't changed over time.

e) I'm going to assume there's a language barrier here (speaking of translations) because you sound really mixed up.

[Supafly345]

a) Again, I am not Jewish. So I don't know anything about it.

2) I do not know that much about the Torah either as I said. But I do know that that Torah is just the Old Testement. Meaning it is part of the Bible, not the same thing as the Bible. I did explain this several times. Some people believe that the Bible is just the Old Testement, and I am not going to tell them that they are wrong, but I don't believe this myself.

g) I apologise if I assumed that the belief systems that you talked about were not your own.

a) I know you don't need to be Oridox Jewish to read the Torah, that is why I said I would like to myself.

green) So are you Jewish or what?

[Perndog]

1) There is no Satan in the parts of the Old Testament where God is described; therefore, Satan is not required to define God.

2) There is no God in Satanic literature; therefore, God is not required to define Satan.

Any more bright ideas?

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by Supafly345

that that Torah is just the Old Testement. Meaning it is part of the Bible, not the same thing as the Bible..... Some people believe that the Bible is just the Old Testement

Originally Posted by Supafly345

But I have always been referring to the Bible. You seem to keep thinking I am talking about the Torah.

I *think* you're trying to say that the Torah/Old Testament is only part of the King James version of the Bible, right?

Otherwise, like I said, the Torah, and the Old Testament are the same thing. When you're talking about the Old Testament, you are in fact talking about the Torah. I'm sure I misunderstood you or something, but people are easily confused by this, so I like to clarify things.

[Supafly345]

But I thought you said that because of the translation mishaps, the Torah was wildly different from the KJV Old Testament. Or are you retracting all of that? I was just going along with what you said.

Pretty much your last post was what I have been saying this whole time. Please read the whole of posts before you comment on them. You are making plain dumb arguments about your misunderstandings and other irrelovent things now, and I don't play those games.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Perndog

1) There is no Satan in the parts of the Old Testament where God is described; therefore, Satan is not required to define God.

2) There is no God in Satanic literature; therefore, God is not required to define Satan.

Any more bright ideas?

I don't care what's in the Bible. Think logically. Could you define all that IS without the idea of nothingness? Coud you describe hot without cold? No. In both cases, certain sensory data (or lack or it) is needed to serve as a measuring stick, so to speak. The same can and has been said of metaphysical and religious principles by leading religious philosophers throughout history. A basis of comparison, or starting point if you prefer is needed. Of course, one could say that the definitition of God lies in the metaphysical and, as such, is beyond human language and understanding but then that defeats the purpose of having a definition in the human sense of the word anyway, doesn't it? It's the same principle and it isn't necessary to say so in print.

[Big Papa Goat]

1) There is no Satan in the parts of the Old Testament where God is described; therefore, Satan is not required to define God.

Doesn't Satan make an appearance in the book of Job?

[Abcdxxxx]

Supa - H'bout the translation mishaps in this fucking thread?
I like how you go back and fix your posts so they make sense two days after someone responds.

The Hebrew Bible a.k.a The Torah a.k.a The Old Testament a.k.a the Jewish Bible are all the same thing. They are not the same as the translated version that is known as the King James Version a.k.a. The New Tetstament a.k.a The Christian Bible.

Enough.

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

I don't care what's in the Bible. Think logically. Could you define all that IS without the idea of nothingness? Coud you describe hot without cold? No. In both cases, certain sensory data (or lack or it) is needed to serve as a measuring stick, so to speak. The same can and has been said of metaphysical and religious principles by leading religious philosophers throughout history. A basis of comparison, or starting point if you prefer is needed. Of course, one could say that the definitition of God lies in the metaphysical and, as such, is beyond human language and understanding but then that defeats the purpose of having a definition in the human sense of the word anyway, doesn't it? It's the same principle and it isn't necessary to say so in print.

Can you describe hot without cold? Can you describe the feeling of hot or cold at all without a circular definition? I know you can feel hot without cold; you can tell the difference between hot and warm, and they're not opposites.

And you missed my point. Since Satan isn't mentioned in any of the passages where God is described, it is possible and quite easy to conceive of God without any opposite; your bases of comparison are humans, who are not evil but are simply less good than God.

[Supafly345]

I am sorry!! It is just too funny not to reply to!

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

-Supa
I like how you go back and fix your posts so they make sense two days after someone responds.

Hahahaha, if this excuse to explain your oversight is what you want to believe, keep telling yourself that.
"Oh my goodness! When did his posts start making sense? Did I...? Noooo, I am right about everything all the time! He must have CHANGED them! Yeah, thats it. Ooooh... I will get him back by confusing him more by changing what the Bible is YET again!"
I really woulden't put that much effort into something that stupid. Dishonesty isn't my bag.

::bites lip:: And I cannot believe you actually said this:

Originally Posted by Airhead

The Hebrew Bible a.k.a The Torah a.k.a The Old Testament a.k.a the Jewish Bible are all the same thing. They are not the same as the translated version that is known as the King James Version a.k.a. The New Tetstament a.k.a The Christian Bible.

Baaahahahahaha!!!!
I would either have to had never read the Bible ever, or just plain blind to believe this. Holy shit dude, I really hope you are kidding about this. Or this would be a very, very sad situation.
The Old Testament is in the Christian Bible, unless I was being given fake Bibles to read all my life. The New Testament is placed right after the Old Testament.
And I am really praying that you didn't mean that the New Testament was translated from the Old Testament. If you want to know why this doesn't make sense, then actually read my past posts to you. (I promise I didn't change them )

I know that you will only read every 5th word of this and probably think I am talking about Jesus actually being Russian or something. But I still had to respond, it was hard not to!

[Abcdxxxx]

I've read the bible in hebrew, and the King James version of the five books of Moses in English... and no, they're not exactly the same.

[kahljorn]

Aren't hot and cold irrelevant terms, meaningful to nothing? There is a global reminder to be reminded of, it's not the fact that they are hot or cold, it's that you can feel the hot or cold. Hot and cold are perceptual, a polar bear's hot and cold are different than ours. Measuring blenders with coffee cup noodles?

[kellychaos]

And you missed my point. Since Satan isn't mentioned in any of the passages where God is described, it is possible and quite easy to conceive of God without any opposite; your bases of comparison are humans, who are not evil but are simply less good than God.

Is it fair to compare the idealistic good and evil (God and Satan) in the metaphysical to what we can sense and judge empirically (i.e. humankind)? Abstractions to realities? My original point was that Satan was not so much a different and opposing God (creating a polytheism) but that he was an aspect of God which complements the whole. You DO make some interesting points of morality, though, as far as the "measuring stick" idea goes. Such as, "Why are some things considered evil in some societies while not in others?". Is it fair to judge those societies using OUR measuring system. Anyway, I have to refine/clarify my position and get back to you. This thread's taking an interesting turn.