over in the Pit thread on Obama’s citizenship, Kanicbird has tossed in some discussion about Christianity recognising other gods, who are nonetheless subordinate to God, with cites. (See his posts 152 and 193.)
Other posters are going “whaaa? Christianity is monotheistic!”
As a matter of Christian theology, how do mainstream churches interpret these provisions cited by Kanicbird? do they agree that there are other gods, subordinate to God?
(I would have put this in GQ, since I’m asking a factual type question about the position of mainstream churches, but popped it in here because it’s a spin-off of the Pit thread. However, I’m primarily interested in knowing how churches interpret the provisions cited by Kanicbird, rather than justifications or challenges to those interpretations.)
Christianity certainly recognises the existance of other “spiritual creatures”, although different branches will give their existance different levels of importance. In Biblical times, some of these creatures may well have been worshiped as gods, and some branches of Christianity would claim that these creatures are the “force” behind some of the other religions (I’ve particularly heard this charge levelled against Hinduism), but I don’t think that any mainstream branch would think of them as gods in any pan-theistic sense.
Passages like “you shall have no other gods before me” are mostly interpreted metaphorically in the Christian circles I find myself in - that nothing or no-one should take the place in your life that is owing to God, whether that be money, career, your wife, drugs, etc.
The “you shall have no other gods before me” thing so bothered my father, he left his families church over it. He believed the passage would have read something like, “Thre are no other gods” if that is what God meant. He died believing there were lots of gods and firmly believed his church should have supported this. Oh, his new one did, but I was only 7 when he died and don’t know what it was.
Most Christian Pagans (no, that’s not an oxymoron) I know, as well as neopagans in general, do indeed share the idea that there are many god/dess/es, or at least, many names and faces by which The Divine can be known. Some of them think YHVH/Christ is the “head god” and some of them simply choose to worship Him as one of many options, the way other neopagans choose Isis or Bridgit as their personal deity of choice. And still others worship/work with Him AND other gods and may or may not “put Him first.”
The first time I heard the “head god” theory, by the way, was from a man who had left the (Roman Catholic, but, I forget which sect) seminary six months before graduation. It wasn’t clear to me if he left because he thought that and they didn’t agree, or if that was standard teaching, but it was my introduction into pantheism, and so I thank him, wherever he is.
My experience with mainstream churches interpretation is there is one God, but then talk about not worshiping other ‘gods’, they sidestep the issue IMHO, but some admit that there are other gods.
There’s a theory that Yahweh was originally not worshipped alone, but together with two or three goddess-wives. From Chapter 1 of the novel King Jesus, by Robert Graves:
Mainstream churches would not interpret Ephesians 3:10 as indicating their are other gods. They would argue it’s talking about angels or other such beings.
The verse in Corinthians is taken out of context.
1 Corinthians 8. I’m using the Nicholas King translation.
"As regards eating what has been sacrificed to idols: we know that ‘idols have no existence in the world’ (Isaiah 41:24) and ‘there is only one God’ (Deuteronomy 6:4).
For there are so-called ‘gods’ in heaven and on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’. BUT:
We have one God (the Father),
from whom everything comes - and we [are made] for him."
Idolism was a problem right from the beginning for Jews and Christians, biblically speaking. It was normal practice to worship many different gods and accept their existence. Claiming there was just one and all others was false was somewhat of an anomaly (although not unheard of, others also made this claim I believe).
In Corinth at the time, meat that had been sacrificed to idols was on the cheap. There was concern that this would be considered worshipping these ‘so called gods’.
It’s not clear whether these gods are thought to exist physically or not, but it’s also clear that it doesn’t particularly matter since there’s only one worth worshipping and worshipping other gods is considered wrong.
Yes it is…in fact, that’s pretty much as classic an example of an oxymoron as there is. A pagan is, by definition, a worshiper of a religion other than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
No, a Pagan (note the capital, just like a Jew or a Muslim or a Wiccan) in the sense of “Pagan Christians” is a self-identified member of the modern neopagan group of religions who worships Christ, as I attempted to make clear. There are plenty of those who call and consider themselves Christian. Many of them join in the seasonal celebrations, perform spells and rituals superficially identical to Wicca, but with a picture or statue of Christ (and sometimes Mary) on the altar instead of, say, The Green Man.
Most often, I use the term “Neopagan” to avoid this confusion, but in all honestly, I’ve only rarely heard or seen the term “Neopagan Christian”, while “Pagan Christian” is quite common in the community. So I used “Pagan Christian” in an attempt to be more accurate. I apologize for not making my usage more clear. I thought the context did that adequately, but I see by your confusion that it did not.
I have no idea how to parse your words. I’m certain you aren’t presuming to tell a Pagan what Paganism is (especially as we don’t entirely agree among ourselves!), so I don’t know what you could possibly mean.
I’m aware, but the fact that there are modern Neopagans who call themselves Pagan Christians and practice a synecretic mixture of Neopaganism and Christianity doesn’t make the term non-oxymoronic. The definition of “pagan” as members of non-Abrahamic religions is the way the word’s been used for a long time, and was the primary use of the term until the growth of Neo-Paganism.
I also recall seeing it used to refer to Muslims (that is, “Moors” or “Saracens”) in The Song of Roland. Of course, that was an English translation, for what French word I do not know.
Worship of pagan gods is what paganism is, it doesn’t matter what gods pagans think they are worshiping.
Or a better way of looking at this is atheism is the worship of a spirit of the Antichrist, though atheists think they are worshiping no god. With the light of the Word of God the truth is revealed.
It’s the translation for the Old French paien, which means the same thing. The author of the Song of Roland believed that they worshipped Apollo. From the poem:
“The king who holds it [Saragossa] is Marsille, who doesn’t love God
He serves Mohammed and calls on Apollo
But that can’t protect him from the evil that reaches him there”
It would be the difference in how you lead your life. A part we of our life which is beneficial to us (IMHO) is spirituality, many (but not all) atheists forgo this aspect of our lives believing a lie of demons saying there is no such thing. By ignoring this part of your being the demons gain control over that aspect, and since you are ignoring it you are blinded to it. Another aspect is telling others about your beliefs which is a form of demonic evangelism as any denial of Jesus is the spirit of the antichrist, so you are doing their work.
There are other aspects, including what are your priorities, who do you place your trust in?
