I will, if I may, start a new long-term thread here.
From the perspective of monotheism, what is a false God?
As much as anything the question is definitional. I know what is conveyed by Monotheism, False, and God. I don't understand what the term "False God" can mean in this context, the words appear to contradict each other. Either it's a God or it isn't. In a monotheistic system it can't exist. If it exists there's no monotheism. And yet if you go to YouTube and search "Baal" you'll find a stack of fundamentalist Christians spouting more hate crime than you'd imagine possible with the word "Baal" attached. Where is this fictional nonsense coming from? How can monotheism be dualist at the same time? What second source of power can monotheism admit to?
I might attract a passing fundamentalist to answer the question as expressed in the OP, that would be both unexpected and pleasing.
False Gods
False Gods
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Re: False Gods
The obvious answer is anyone held to be a god by others, who is not the God of the religion of your personal choice.
This includes cases where the gods in question are demonstrably one and the same - e.g. the God of the Jews is the God of Christianity is the God of Islam.
It also includes your own God when believed in by those whose interpretation of the scriptures you disagree with - the Southern Baptists come to mind.
This includes cases where the gods in question are demonstrably one and the same - e.g. the God of the Jews is the God of Christianity is the God of Islam.
It also includes your own God when believed in by those whose interpretation of the scriptures you disagree with - the Southern Baptists come to mind.
Re: False Gods
And yet - again definitionally - these views of a monotheistic God are either entirely man-made or they display a appallingly malevolent power which nobody in their right mind would worship. Which speaks volumes about the noxious faiths their adherents create around them.
If indeed there is an appallingly malevolent power it is either the only one of its kind, in which case all this nonsense about choosing the few and tormenting the remainder for all eternity has nothing to do with "Satan made them that way" at all; or the entire story is constructed by the leadership of the faiths into a self-consistent hammer to keep their flock subservient to their church. What is impossible in either event is that the God or the construct is in any sense good. Either way leaves me feeling unsympathetic toward the church leaderships if nothing else.
Your claim that each of these groups declares "My story is the true story of God and your story is false" might be a fair condensation but it has to imply that any story of a false God is a story of something which never in fact existed. No monotheist church thinker can claim a personal relationship with the only God while at the same time deploring a different real God as competition. And this is where the tissue of "I gave him free will" comes in - yes I made him and yes he's strong and muscly and eternal, but that's not my fault - he chose to be that way"? And that's not fiction-building? Seriously? What kind of rogue could come up with that as an excuse for the massive internal inconsistency in their view?
On the other hand, if there never was and isn't any such God outside the minds of the fabricators of the stories, the entire concept of God simplifies enormously, sounds far more credible, and assigns the blame firmly where it belongs - with the scoundrels and dupes who continue to claim it's all true. It allows "false" to mean "untrue" instead of "malign", and adds one more God to the "false" category. Ipso facto, as the Americans would put it.
If indeed there is an appallingly malevolent power it is either the only one of its kind, in which case all this nonsense about choosing the few and tormenting the remainder for all eternity has nothing to do with "Satan made them that way" at all; or the entire story is constructed by the leadership of the faiths into a self-consistent hammer to keep their flock subservient to their church. What is impossible in either event is that the God or the construct is in any sense good. Either way leaves me feeling unsympathetic toward the church leaderships if nothing else.
Your claim that each of these groups declares "My story is the true story of God and your story is false" might be a fair condensation but it has to imply that any story of a false God is a story of something which never in fact existed. No monotheist church thinker can claim a personal relationship with the only God while at the same time deploring a different real God as competition. And this is where the tissue of "I gave him free will" comes in - yes I made him and yes he's strong and muscly and eternal, but that's not my fault - he chose to be that way"? And that's not fiction-building? Seriously? What kind of rogue could come up with that as an excuse for the massive internal inconsistency in their view?
On the other hand, if there never was and isn't any such God outside the minds of the fabricators of the stories, the entire concept of God simplifies enormously, sounds far more credible, and assigns the blame firmly where it belongs - with the scoundrels and dupes who continue to claim it's all true. It allows "false" to mean "untrue" instead of "malign", and adds one more God to the "false" category. Ipso facto, as the Americans would put it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Re: False Gods
I draw a big distinction between the religion and the church, whichever religion you choose.
Religion is constructed by God for the benefit of those it is given to, thus Judaism is tailored to nomadic herdsmen but Christianity was more suited to the settled city dwellers 3,000 years later and Islam to the desert people.
The church, however, is a human construct whose sole purpose is to give power to the theocracy and to control the people.
God is only perforce malign if both omnipotent and omnipresent, the church might choose to claim it but it makes no sense. Assume rather that God is not omnipresent - there is an entire universe to attend to so visit, update the scripture to suit the changed circumstances and move on. After all, man is limited and cannot comprehend the whole of God’s plan - the mind of God is infinite and beyond man’s understanding so teach man what is suited to his situation and that he can understand then teach him more when needed.
So, I would say, “There is no God but God” and Abraham was his prophet, Buddha taught his message, Jesus was his prophet and Mohammed was his prophet to each as he needed - then the church stepped in and corrupted it.
Religion is constructed by God for the benefit of those it is given to, thus Judaism is tailored to nomadic herdsmen but Christianity was more suited to the settled city dwellers 3,000 years later and Islam to the desert people.
The church, however, is a human construct whose sole purpose is to give power to the theocracy and to control the people.
God is only perforce malign if both omnipotent and omnipresent, the church might choose to claim it but it makes no sense. Assume rather that God is not omnipresent - there is an entire universe to attend to so visit, update the scripture to suit the changed circumstances and move on. After all, man is limited and cannot comprehend the whole of God’s plan - the mind of God is infinite and beyond man’s understanding so teach man what is suited to his situation and that he can understand then teach him more when needed.
So, I would say, “There is no God but God” and Abraham was his prophet, Buddha taught his message, Jesus was his prophet and Mohammed was his prophet to each as he needed - then the church stepped in and corrupted it.
Re: False Gods
The culpability may, as you say, be limited. It depends on whether God talked to any of these people you mention. If he did, and left matters to turn out as they have, I'd like a word in his ear. And if he isn't omnipresent and omnipotent and eternal then he's not a God, he's an alien lifeform.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.