Genesis has more than one God?

[Confused]

Genesis 3: 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This has always bothered me. If there is only one God, and He is the one speaking in this passage, then two things pop out at me.

1) Who is he speaking to?

2) Why does God refer to Adam and Eve becoming one of US? In the plural sense.

[William]

[Replying to post 100 by Willum]

Did you not see the funny side? You said 'Well, you're a better man than me.' about what I would do if I were the god of the ants.
That is why I replied 'shouldn't that read I'm a better GOD than you??'

And you then reply 'no'...

...'no' what?

That you as a GOD being so much more than the ant and not giving a brass razoo about mere ants while I as a GOD do?

All that really tells anyone is what we are as individual human beings. What out inner attitude consists of.

My theology explains why GOD is interested in human beings even that we are - as you declare - 'less than an ant by comparison'.

It is not about size but substance.

So are you ready to answer your own questions Willum?

[tam]

[Replying to post 99 by William]

No, under the circumstances, you should consider me, being far more powerful than an ant mound, not saving either of my devoted ants, while you would.

I don't care about two ant mounts in Manitoba, and wouldn't go through the trouble.

I think a God whose powers are necessarily so far above mine that I'd be less than an ant by comparison, won't be concerned about anything a man or men do, either.

Isn't that bringing God down to your level? As is assuming that God thinks and feels as you do?

Why do you do that?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[wiploc]

Before Jonah, gods were local and many. Jonah crossed the water to get away from Jehovah, and Jehovah was on the other side of the water too. Big shock! That was the beginning of the end of henotheism: the worship of a particular god, as by a family or tribe, without disbelieving in the existence of others. (dictionary.comm)

[Willum]

[Replying to post 101 by William]

Hi, I answered: I would not even acknowledge them, much less, try to save them because they believed I would. Sorry, they are just ants.

[Replying to post 102 by tam]

You missed the point.
It isn't to bring your concept of God down to your level, but to make an analogy between how any reasonable god with the powers of your God would regard humans.

So there are two ant mounds in Manitoba that worship you, Tam', are you going to save their souls?

What if they were still more powerful, make them rabbits: Would you save them then?

The point is that the more powerful you are than another creature, the less you are going to be able to sympathize, or desire to do anything about them.

Your religion's need for God to create the universe, to "do anything," and know everything, has made we humans much lower in consideration than those ants praying to you for salvation.

If you wouldn't save them, how could you possible expect your God to even notice you?

And you can't have him caring about you unless you bring your God down to your level.

So answer and resolve the paradox.

(Remember, I don't believe in the creature at all, so don't say I am brining him down.)

[William]

[Replying to post 104 by Willum]

Hi, I answered: I would not even acknowledge them, much less, try to save them because they believed I would. Sorry, they are just ants.

Well that tells me more about you than it does about GOD.

Now the Ants are assuming you as their GOD think they are important. You see no importance in them because of your own attitude as an individual, whereas I think they are important because of my attitude as an individual.

It matters not that as the GOD, they have me figured out completely incorrectly, and think that I desire their worship, or that I will save them from the other ants.

I will let them learn their reality and be or not be responsible for their own actions because I am not one to be dictated to by the beliefs of critters who assume things about me which are not exactly the truth, but nor would I think of them as 'nothing to be interested in.'

Thus, while the analogy of ants represent human beings, human beings compared with ants are a heck of a lot more interesting.

[tam]

Peace to you Willum,

[Replying to post 102 by tam]

You missed the point.

I'm not sure I missed the point more than I disagree with the point.

It isn't to bring your concept of God down to your level, but to make an analogy between how any reasonable god with the powers of your God would regard humans.

Reasonable according to whom?

What one person considers reasonable another person considers unreasonable, Willum. To suggest that God must find reasonable what you find reasonable is bringing Him down to your level of reasoning.


You are also assuming that God must save the ants based upon reason (your subjective opinion on what is reasonable) rather than upon love.

So what makes you think that God acts based upon your opinion of what is reasonable; rather than upon His knowledge of love?

So there are two ant mounds in Manitoba that worship you, Tam', are you going to save their souls?

Do they have souls to save? Did I promise that I would save their souls? Did I create them? Was my purpose for them to live forever? Did I make the promises that they claim I made to them; do the things they claim I did (such as send my Son in their form so that they could know me?


Because the thing that is absent from your question analogy is whether or not any of the ant claims are true.

What if they were still more powerful, make them rabbits: Would you save them then?

Same questions as above.

The point is that the more powerful you are than another creature, the less you are going to be able to sympathize, or desire to do anything about them.

Says Willum?

Your religion's need for God to create the universe, to "do anything," and know everything, has made we humans much lower in consideration than those ants praying to you for salvation.

I'm not even sure how to sort through that... but again, so what?

If you wouldn't save them, how could you possible expect your God to even notice you?

I never said I would not save them. But what does it matter what I would or would not do? Why would I assume that God would or would not do what I would or would not do?

And you can't have him caring about you unless you bring your God down to your level.

That does not follow, Willum. If you care about a lesser creature, I would say that you are lifted UP by the fact that you care for those weaker and less than you.

That shows love does it not?

So answer and resolve the paradox.

I think the paradox is only in your head Willum. You're basing your conclusions off unsupported assumptions.

(Remember, I don't believe in the creature at all, so don't say I am brining him down.)

If you are suggesting that he must think and reason as you do, then yes, you are bringing him down to your level. To your level of reasoning and thinking.



Peace again to you!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 106 by tam]

I'm not sure I missed the point more than I disagree with the point.

Disagreeing with something simply because it invalidates your believe is not a valid reason.
You need to be able to say why.

Reasonable according to whom?

Reasonable as in it logically follows.

What one person considers reasonable another person considers unreasonable, Willum. To suggest that God must find reasonable what you find reasonable is bringing Him down to your level of reasoning.

No, in general, two or more people agree on what is reasonable, saying otherwise does not make it so, you need to explain. Since I think God doesn't exist, you can see how little that might mean to me, but you should also see there is no level for me to bring him down to.

You are also assuming that God must save the ants based upon reason (your subjective opinion on what is reasonable) rather than upon love.

No, not correct at all. That's just an analogy your are misrepresenting.

Do they have souls to save? Did I promise that I would save their souls? Did I create them? Was my purpose for them to live forever? Did I make the promises that they claim I made to them; do the things they claim I did (such as send my Son in their form so that they could know me?

Do you have a soul?
Did God promise to save you?
Did God create you?
If God says you are not one of the few, do you live forever?
If God decides to renege on any promise, what will you do about it?
Can you show a single scrap of evidence that God exists, or that he sent his only son to save you?

Can you show that the ants don't believe they have a soul?

Sorry, Tam', you can't show any of it.

And the analogy is to demonstrate that any God whom has the characteristics the religion requires of him, he wouldn't care a fig about any humans or any thousand Earths full of people.

There is simply nothing to offer him, that he couldn't do better without you.

Says Willum?

Says denial.

I'm not even sure how to sort through that... but again, so what?

That is because you don't understand the analogy, since to understand it, you would realize that God has no need of followers.

I never said I would not save them. But what does it matter what I would or would not do? Why would I assume that God would or would not do what I would or would not do?

Is this you deliberately failing to understand the analogy?

That does not follow, Willum. If you care about a lesser creature, I would say that you are lifted UP by the fact that you care for those weaker and less than you.

That shows love does it not?

Do you love your chosen ants?

I think the paradox is only in your head Willum. You're basing your conclusions off unsupported assumptions.

Certainly not true, if you are unable to resolve it.

If you are suggesting that he must think and reason as you do, then yes, you are bringing him down to your level. To your level of reasoning and thinking.

No, there is a huge difference between my 'your' (Christianity), and your 'your,' which is me.
I don't bring imaginary creatures down to my level.

You perceiving that I do is something you need to get around. Because the only bringing him down to any level is your own incorrect perception.

So you have been dodging in and out of the analogy in order to prove it isn't so, but that doesn't work.

[tam]

[Replying to post 106 by tam]

I'm not sure I missed the point more than I disagree with the point.

Disagreeing with something simply because it invalidates your believe is not a valid reason.
You need to be able to say why.

Yep. That's probably why I kept responding to each of your points.

Reasonable according to whom?

Reasonable as in it logically follows.

Well it does not logically follow Willum. It does not logically follow that the most powerful being in the universe is going to think and reason exactly the same as Willum thinks and reasons. It does not follow that a powerful being thinks every lesser being is beneath its notice, simply because Willum thinks that.

What one person considers reasonable another person considers unreasonable, Willum. To suggest that God must find reasonable what you find reasonable is bringing Him down to your level of reasoning.

No, in general, two or more people agree on what is reasonable, saying otherwise does not make it so, you need to explain.

Okay, Willum, I do not think your analogy is reasonable. I do not think that a powerful being must find lesser beings beneath its notice. Obviously neither does William, because he said as much in his answer to your analogy. So that would be two out of three people disagreeing with what you consider to be reasonable.

If I were god (and this does not mean God would do what tam would do), and I HAD NOT made promises to any other creature (ant or rabbit), and I did NOT create them specifically because I loved them, I would STILL be interested in these little ants who believed I existed and who were worshiping me. I would check them out. I would consider them worthy of that since they were seeking me out. I think I would even feel responsible for them, since they were seeking me out, calling on me. I would want to respond and correct them in their errors, especially if their errors were leading them to harm. I would have to be careful how I went about doing that of course, because I am a very powerful being and I could harm them. But yeah, they'd have my attention. I might even love them, and because of that love, I might want to give them things that they desired.

**

If I HAD made promises and created them out of love, then I would CERTAINLY take interest in them, keeping my promises, etc.

**

On top of all that, Willum, if these lesser beings were beneath my notice and I cared nothing for any of them, why in the world would I have bothered to create them in the first place? So I could create things that I would not ever notice?

Is that logical? Reasonable?

You are also assuming that God must save the ants based upon reason (your subjective opinion on what is reasonable) rather than upon love.

No, not correct at all. That's just an analogy your are misrepresenting.

So what do you mean by that phrase 'reasonable god'? Who determines what is reasonable?

Do they have souls to save? Did I promise that I would save their souls? Did I create them? Was my purpose for them to live forever? Did I make the promises that they claim I made to them; do the things they claim I did (such as send my Son in their form so that they could know me?

Do you have a soul?
Did God promise to save you?
Did God create you?
If God says you are not one of the few, do you live forever?
If God decides to renege on any promise, what will you do about it?
Can you show a single scrap of evidence that God exists, or that he sent his only son to save you?

Can you show that the ants don't believe they have a soul?

Sorry, Tam', you can't show any of it.

This time you missed the point. How can I properly answer your question analogy if you do state whether the claims that the ants are making are true or just claims that they made up?

If the claims are true, then yes, I would do what I promised. If the claims are not true, then they would still have my interest, as I stated above.

And the analogy is to demonstrate that any God whom has the characteristics the religion requires of him, he wouldn't care a fig about any humans or any thousand Earths full of people.

The analogy fails to demonstrate this.

There is simply nothing to offer him, that he couldn't do better without you.

Maybe its not about you offering something to Him. But rather Him offering something to you. Out of LOVE. Which He IS.

Says Willum?

Says denial.

Seriously, Willum, what kind of a response is that? Can you or can you not demonstrate that your statement is true:

"The point is that the more powerful you are than another creature, the less you are going to be able to sympathize, or desire to do anything about them."

Are you going to provide some support for this, or is it true just because Willum says so?

I'm not even sure how to sort through that... but again, so what?

That is because you don't understand the analogy, since to understand it, you would realize that God has no need of followers.

Where did I ever say that God NEEDED followers?

I never said I would not save them. But what does it matter what I would or would not do? Why would I assume that God would or would not do what I would or would not do?

Is this you deliberately failing to understand the analogy?

No. Can you please answer the questions?

That does not follow, Willum. If you care about a lesser creature, I would say that you are lifted UP by the fact that you care for those weaker and less than you.

That shows love does it not?

Do you love your chosen ants?

Yes. I chose them after all, did I not?

Want to answer my question now?

I think the paradox is only in your head Willum. You're basing your conclusions off unsupported assumptions.

Certainly not true, if you are unable to resolve it.

Resolve WHAT, Willum? WHAT is the paradox?



Peace again to you.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 108 by tam]
Here, I will do what you do:

To respond logically to your points.
They don't logically follow.
I never stipulated it was my logic. Just logic. You haven't been able to address.

Okay, Willum, I do not think your analogy is reasonable. I do not think that a powerful being must find lesser beings beneath its notice.

Um... I have given my reasons, they are logical.
You identifying it with my opinion, incorrectly, doesn't make it wrong. That's a strawman.

Yeah, if you assume an all-powerful creature follows the Bible, your are right, but the principle you are avoiding is that it is preposterous for an all powerful creature to follow the Bible, anymore than you do follow the Canadian ants' Bible.

William took the literal route, playing a game. We both know he is not saving any ants in Manitoba, he has made no promises, and has no power, and in reality, has no interest

Just as God, even assuming you are partially right, has treated you with 2000 years of neglect.
Or, not giving you that, any God can be shown to not have made any promises, in fact does not have any proof he exists.

And should such a creature REALLY exist, we can not show that he made any promises, and have no reason to believe he did.

On top of all that, Willum, if these lesser beings were beneath my notice and I cared nothing for any of them, why in the world would I have bothered to create them in the first place? So I could create things that I would not ever notice?

Everyday I create thousands of creatures and the only thing I do with them is flush them down the toilet as fast as I can. Does this answer your question?

The analogy fails to demonstrate this.

Hmmm., try this: No one would save any devoted ants, just as no creature necessarily magnitudes farther above us than we are above ants, would save us.
It has nothing to gain.
Zero, nothing. There is nothing we could offer God that he couldn't do better by himself.
Or...Is there? I'm listening.

As for God being love, we have to agree to disagree: God sending Jesus within a few generations of Adam and Eve might have been love. God so loving the world that he drowned everyone in it, is not love. God hardening instead of softening the Pharaohs heart is not love. The story of Job is just twisted.
Jesus taking an extended weekend for your sins is not a sacrifice or love. In fact, since it was the Romans will that suffered him to die, God just seems to be taking unreasonable credit for an event that didn't happen...
Hmmm...

You asked if I can demonstrate it is true...

"The point is that the more powerful you are than another creature, the less you are going to be able to sympathize, or desire to do anything about them."

Yes, I am sure you care about helpless ants in a construction zone, more than you care about the bacteria you flushed to their deaths in the processing station, and care more for the dogs in your neighborhood, and more for people, still more for your family.
Now say we step the analogy up to this God that can't be shown to exist or love anything...

Where did I ever say that God NEEDED followers?

If this being doesn't need you, you really are up a creek.

[Revelations won]

Confused first post

"Genesis 3: 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This has always bothered me. If there is only one God, and He is the one speaking in this passage, then two things pop out at me.

1) Who is he speaking to?

2) Why does God refer to Adam and Eve becoming one of US? In the plural sense."


Reply:

Is it rather obvious that it is Elohim speaking to His Son Jehovah or Jehovah speaking to Elohim....? None other comes to mind.