|
Author
|
Topic: Monotheism or Enotheism? What is more apt for Christian Religion?
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 16 of 72 (703422)
07-21-2013 12:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
07-21-2013 12:31 AM
|
|
Re: Too broad a brush?
Why cant a monotheistic god have a Son? Of course he could. But the controversy is about what you make of the son. When you 1) worship the Son, and/or 2) claim that the Son was actually both the Father and a separate being who has always existed, are your claims to being monotheistic still credible?
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Phat, posted 07-21-2013 12:31 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 17 of 72 (703429)
07-21-2013 9:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
07-21-2013 12:42 AM
|
|
Re: Too broad a brush?
And I took issue with your labeling of Christians as holding schizoid beliefs. Some Christians hold beliefs that might be characterized in that way, but many Christians completely dismiss both fallen angels and Trinity doctrine. And I have no problem with you taking issue with my description. You are free to believe whatever you want.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2013 12:42 AM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 18 of 72 (703430)
07-21-2013 9:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
07-21-2013 12:31 AM
|
|
Re: Too broad a brush?
If the son is also a God then it is no longer a Monotheistic religion.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Phat, posted 07-21-2013 12:31 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by Phat, posted 07-22-2013 8:37 AM | | jar has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18299 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.1
|
|
|
Message 19 of 72 (703452)
07-22-2013 8:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
07-21-2013 9:56 AM
|
|
Re: Too broad a brush?
jar writes: If the son is also a God then it is no longer a Monotheistic religion. There is no "also". There is but One. Is this hard for you to grasp? Humans have babies and our babies are also humans. A Creator can manifest through its "baby" and still be One Creator. I still cant figure out why we christians are the skitzo relatives.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by jar, posted 07-21-2013 9:56 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by jar, posted 07-22-2013 8:45 AM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 21 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2013 9:38 AM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 20 of 72 (703453)
07-22-2013 8:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
07-22-2013 8:37 AM
|
|
Re: Too broad a brush?
Yes, a human can have a baby that is also human, but then they are two different entities. If God has a son then there are two gods. Not monotheism.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Phat, posted 07-22-2013 8:37 AM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 21 of 72 (703456)
07-22-2013 9:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
07-22-2013 8:37 AM
|
|
Re: Too broad a brush?
Phat writes: Humans have babies and our babies are also humans. And gods have babies which are also gods. This is a common feature of polytheistic religions. For example Apollo was the son of Zeus. Aside from Christian insistence that it is monotheistic what really is the difference between one god's divine offspring and another god's divine offspring?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Phat, posted 07-22-2013 8:37 AM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 22 of 72 (703459)
07-22-2013 11:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Asteragros
07-20-2013 12:58 PM
|
|
Re: More please sir
We've had a thread like this before:
Is Christianity Polytheistic? .
You may also safely forget these words and, instead, focus yourselves on these three ideal concepts: Concept A: In the whole universe exists only one god. I worship this sole god. Concept B: In the universe exist a number of gods. But I worship only one of these Concept C: In the universe exist a number of gods. I worship all of them Now, is not important if the word sequence ‘Monotheism’-‘Henotheism’-‘Politheism’ closely fits with the sequence ‘Concept A’-‘Concept B’-‘Concept C’ (shown before). The pivotal point is: Is — for example — Christianity more closely described like a Religion that sticks on the Concept A, the Concept B, or the Concept C? Virtually all Christians immediately would rule out the Concept C from the (mathematical) set of Christianity. But, what about the remaining Concepts, A and B? Christianity may be considered to be inside the Concept A? Or, it is more appropriate to consider Christianity like a part of the Concept B? I think it could go either way. How do you determine what is more appropriate? If you want to define a "god" as, simply, "a supernatural being", then you could say that Christianity has multiple "gods". But I doubt many Christians would agree with you because, to them, "a supernatural being" isn't necessarily a "god". The reserve the term "God" for the one supreme supernatural being. The way you can shoehorn Christianity into Henotheism is by labeling any supernatural being as a "deity", and then saying that Christianity has multiple deities, yet worships only one of them. I don't think that is an appropriate use of the term though. For one, Henotheism is a description of a state of primitive religions that are evolving from polytheism towards monotheism. As the culture converts from many gods to one god, there's a transitional period where people accept that many gods exist but only one is deserving of their worship. Eventually, those other gods get removed from the picture as other non-god entities, or something, and then the culture has moved into monotheism. For two, you're not using Christianity's own definition of a "god". You're using a definition that they reject in order to assign a description to them that they wouldn't otherwise fall under. That doesn't seem like an honest assessment to me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Asteragros, posted 07-20-2013 12:58 PM | | Asteragros has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2013 8:17 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: More please sir
CS writes: If you want to define a "god" as, simply, "a supernatural being", then you could say that Christianity has multiple "gods". I don't think anyone is advocating that all suprentural beings qualify as gods. Leprechauns for example are supernatural but not godly. I think the term "god" is generally and recognisably used in the following sort of way:
quote:
a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force
Link Applying this definition is why Thor and Apollo and Zeus and Athena and Mars and Vishnu etc. etc. etc. are all recognisably godly. If this same definition were applied to Christian entities then Satan would arguably qualify as the god of evil and various saints and angels would qualify as lesser gods of various other aspects of reality.
CS writes: But I doubt many Christians would agree with you because, to them, "a supernatural being" isn't necessarily a "god". The reserve the term "God" for the one supreme supernatural being. Well they do when they are talking about their own self-proclaimed monotheism. But they seem quite happy to accept the likes of Thor, Apollo etc. etc as qualifying as gods of polytheistic religions. In short the term "god" doesn't seem to get applied consistently as people want to special plead their own godly beliefs as somehow different to all those other godly beliefs.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 24 of 72 (703493)
07-23-2013 9:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
07-23-2013 8:17 AM
|
|
Re: More please sir
CS writes: But I doubt many Christians would agree with you because, to them, "a supernatural being" isn't necessarily a "god". The reserve the term "God" for the one supreme supernatural being. Well they do when they are talking about their own self-proclaimed monotheism. But they seem quite happy to accept the likes of Thor, Apollo etc. etc as qualifying as gods of polytheistic religions. That's because there's two different words describing two different concepts. From your link:
quote:
god a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force related adjective divine
quote:
God (theology) the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
In short the term "god" doesn't seem to get applied consistently as people want to special plead their own godly beliefs as somehow different to all those other godly beliefs. Its not about the belief, its about the object of that belief. Only God is worthy of worship.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2013 8:17 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 25 by Tangle, posted 07-23-2013 10:30 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied | | | Message 26 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2013 10:47 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.7
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: More please sir
CS writes: Only God is worthy of worship. Why is anything worthy of worship? Why does a God need it?
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: More please sir
CS writes: That's because there's two different words describing two different concepts. If that's your way of saying that Christians are equivocating then I agree. They apply one meaning to the term "god" when talking about other religions and a different one when they are talking about their own beliefs. If a single definition were applied consistently then either Christians would have to conclude that the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks etc. were atheists (because none of those godly concepts meet the Christian criteria for "god") or they would have to conclude that many Christians are polytheists because they believe in a range of godly entities.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 27 of 72 (703497)
07-23-2013 11:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by Straggler
07-23-2013 10:47 AM
|
|
Re: More please sir
If that's your way of saying that Christians are equivocating then I agree. Even your own source recognizes the difference.
They apply one meaning to the term "god" when talking about other religions and a different one when they are talking about their own beliefs. Because they're talking about different concepts.
If a single definition were applied consistently then either Christians would have to conclude that the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks etc. were atheists (because none of those godly concepts meet the Christian criteria for "god") or they would have to conclude that many Christians are polytheists because they believe in a range of godly entities. There's no reason to merge them into one thing, well other than your attempts to denigrate Christianity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2013 10:47 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2013 11:28 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: More please sir
Christians are theists. Those who believe in the existence of Thor or Apollo are theists too. Because the Christian God, Thor and Apollo are all recognisably godly concepts by any common conceptual criteria. By the same criteria other concepts in Christianity are also recognisably godly but Christians don't call them "gods". I don't see how you can blame me for attempting to apply terminology consistently.
CS writes: Because they're talking about different concepts. But they are all recognisably godly concepts aren't they?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 29 of 72 (703502)
07-23-2013 12:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
07-23-2013 11:28 AM
|
|
Re: More please sir
Christians are theists. Those who believe in the existence of Thor or Apollo are theists too. Further, Christians are monotheists and the Norse and Greeks were polytheists. That means they have different god-concepts.
Because the Christian God, Thor and Apollo are all recognisably godly concepts by any common conceptual criteria. There is no common conceptual criteria at all, and even the criteria that you offered distinguishes between the a monotheistic God and a polytheistic god.
By the same criteria other concepts in Christianity are also recognisably godly but Christians don't call them "gods". They're mutually exclusive:
quote:
god a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force related adjective divine
quote:
God (theology) the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
If you have a sole God that controls everything, then you cannot have other gods controlling stuff too.
I don't see how you can blame me for attempting to apply terminology consistently. You're not attempting to apply terminology consistently, you're trying to smoosh two different concepts into one.
But they are all recognisably godly concepts aren't they? No, man, they're god- ish 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2013 11:28 AM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2013 12:48 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied | | | Message 34 by ringo, posted 07-24-2013 12:33 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: More please sir
What qualifies one as a theist? Whether poly or mono. Belief in the existence of god(s). Obviously.
CS writes: There is no common conceptual criteria at all... So how does one recognise any given concept as a god?
CS writes: Further, Christians are monotheists and the Norse and Greeks were polytheists. That means they have different god-concepts. I thought mono meant one god concept and poly meant many god concepts. In either case the concept(s) in question need to be recognisably godly don't they?
CS writes: They're mutually exclusive: That is a very weird way to look at things. If a god "a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe" how on Earth can you conclude that a superntural being who controls all/multiple aspects of the universe doesn't qualify?
CS writes: No, man, they're god- ish So then believers must be theistic- ish?
|
™ Version 4.2