Angel very vaild point. I agree, wouldnt it be ironic to have more than one god in such a religion? MAthmatically makes no sence, and even the GOD itself doesnt make sence. 'God' is perfect and commits no sin. Has power beyond imagination, how comes there are others that rule? This sounds like a corporation to me =)

misread the question a little. Other 'Gods' i believe means such as Other 'Religions'. Doesnt mean that Theres multiple Gods to pick and chose just be carful on what God your worshiping, after all God cannot answer someone when thier not talking to him.

My personal interpitation is that this is both a referance to non abraham religions as well as a referance to man. I believe that people are Gods, not God almighty but lesser Gods of the God almighty, so this would tell us to not put ourselves & our own will before God almighties;^]

There are indeed many mysteries surrounding religions. One of these mysteries is related to psychology behind belief structures. There is definately no real logic that can explain the absolute of any deity. It is a by faith alone that one accepts a deity, it is the psyche, even the ego, that requires that faith to be defined.

Where logic is concerned I find the most mysterious part of acceptance,of a belief in a deity, is the lack of logic it takes to foster such beliefs.

For example, in the OP the word jealeousy comes into question.

From my personal perspective, logically, a deity that would have the ability to create a dimension from outside Its' own realm of existance, would not be capable of exhibiting the 'emotions' that are strictly intrinsic to the nature of being created to survive in that dimension.

In other words, the emotions we, as humans, experience are directly related to our physical form and our interaction with others of like form. Fear, hate, wrath, jealeousy, love, supereriority, sympathy, greed ... these are all emotions related to our physiological being and our co-existence within this dimension with others.

We, as humans, are forever attempting to find ways of dealing with, getting around, leaving behind, these emotions with which we find so much fault.

To assign such emotions to any deity seems to be an 'easy' way for humans to 'relate', on a psychological level, with the creative intelligent force that exists beyond thier comprhension.

This is actually quite destructive to those who attempt to 'gather' believers to their faith. For the logic behind these ideas does not agree with the definition they attempt to give their deity.

There are many gods. Sex, drugs, money, power. The list is very long.

youll notice in genesis god refers 2 himself several times as "we"

Yes, that is Jesus and God talking to one another.

I find the "gods" meaning other religions and humans as lesser gods gods to be interesting points of views. While the other religions did come to mind, I never really thought about humans not putting themselves before God. I also agree with a lot of what you say redy.

When God says "we" in Genesis isn't he stating it in terms of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Id never thought of it that way hmmm
I suppose from a christian perspective that makes sense

I still get pretty jumbled by the I, we, one, three business. But I guess God is just a complex being in that way.

Yes, the similarities between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Buddha can hardly be coincidence. Jesus Sermon on the Mount was almost a verbatim repeat of a sermon that had been given by Buddha much earlier. Not only are the idea almost verbatim in context, but the elements are even presented in the very same order.

Proponents of the Bible will often claim that no other book on earth offers the same teachings as set forth in the Bible, yet these claims are totally off-the-wall with nothing to back them up. There are no moral teachings in the Bible that can’t be found in many other religions. This claim is just a bogus claim to try to claim that the Bible is somehow “unique” when in truth it isn’t unique at all. Everything that Jesus taught had already been taught in the eastern religions long before Jesus was ever born.

As far as the multiple Gods are concerned. The bible often refers to god in multiplicity.

Right at the get-go the Bible states:

Gen 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”

Let “us” make man in “our” image and after “our” likeness?

Sounds pretty plural to me.

Some have argued that this was just lost in the translations. But ironically the people who argue this are often the Bible Thumping fundamentalists who demand verbatim interpretations all the time. The irony here is that if these things are lost in translation then we can surely toss any “verbatim” interpretations of the Bible out the window because clearly everything has been lost in translations!

It’s always comes down to a “have your cake and eat it too” for these Bible Thumpers. Either the translations are correct, which brings up all sorts of inconsistencies. Or the Bible has been lost via translations. Not much of a choice for Bible Thumpers.

I think that for me, since I'm very open spitutally, the idea of other gods has always come back to a part of supreme deity and the name you give that part doesnt really matter, its a representation of something that comes from the one.

so what ive learned here is that christianity is polytheistic!

Not so, that would imply multiple supreme Gods, all Abraham religions preach of a single supreme God;^]

Aquinas would also agree that there needs to be one supreme creator being that eternally exists...otherwise the line of who created who would continue on into infinity. But does that mean it's possible for multiple gods to eternally exist?

Perplexed I am... at the very notion of a God speaking to himself? Even more so near the beginning of the time of man's very existence... Jesus talks to God, which would be long long before Jesus was born... in fact, before the 'need' for his existance?

This makes no sense to me...

Aquinas explains that as God the Father and God the Son both eternally existing...doesn't mean that it really makes sense though. Because I feel that if that is possible then it's possible for multiple gods to eternally exist.

Only if you accept the radical interpretations of some independent amateur self-assigned theologians.

Most scholarly theologians wouldn’t agree with these desperate attempts to justify every word verbatim.

Most scholarly theologians accept a more allegorical approach to religious doctrines. They accept that there are errors in translations and appeal to an approach of faith rather than an approach of technically precise interpretations. Appealing to technically precise interpretations is a sign of someone who has no faith at all. It also only leads to even more contradictions. They just end up jumping from one pot of fire into another ad infinitum.

Not only that, but if that was what God had intended then why not proclaim as a commandment "Thou shalt have no other God before us", and make it clear that he had a Son at that stage of the game.

Anytime one tries to clear up apparent 'inconsistencies' in the Bible they will always just be faced with yet another inconsistency.

I've gone down that path before myself. I tired to put the pieces of the Bible together in a consistent fashion. I came to the conclusion that they simply won't fit.

I might add, that I'm not the only one who has tried this. The great Isaac Newton also attempted to do this and came to the same conclusion - it can't be done! There are simply too many inconsistencies they can't all be made to be consistent.

It's just not possible.

If someone is going to believe in the Bible they had better be willing to accept that it's full of inconsistencies and just leave it at that.

One would have to believe that everything was already 'planned'... or even more-so... known... prior to it's fruition to even be able to effectively entertain the notion of Jesus being existant prior to the 'need'... which, from my understandings, came as a direct result from the 'free will' choices of man that had displeased God throughout the ages.

THAT is the crux though... is it not?

That aspect of a belief system negates the value of one's choice and/or ablility to create his/her own destiny... does it not?

I do not believe that everything is already predetermined and known... we are not puppets on the ends of the strings which are connected to God's fingers.... it would all be quite pointless in that regard, would it not?

Free will cannot exist if everything has already been determined.

Abra...