|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Because, according to the Christian definition, Satan is not a god. Since this thread is about Christianity as a polytheistic religion, the only relevant question is whether Satan is a god in Christianity. When I asked Dr Sing (a Christian) if Hindus believed in gods (s) said yes. So if Dr Sing thinks Hindu gods qualify as gods in what sense does Satan not also qualify?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
If I define pencils as gods and believe that pencils exist do I become a theist? I would say that the answer depends on what qualities you ascribe to pencils. If you simply refer to a garden variety pencil with no qualities beyond that associated with the typical writing utensil, I would say no, you are not a theist, you are a nut.
What is it one has to believe in to be a theist? A tricky question. I think there is some set of minimum criteria that a being needs to meet to be considered a god. I'm far from a comparative religion expert, so I'm hardly the person to put forth a comprehensive definition, but on first glance, it at least needs to be some kind of self-aware entity with supernatural powers. This rules out a normal pencil. But obviously beyond any minimum set of criteria, different religions have different, more detailed definitions, and the definition of god in Christianity does not include Satan. Thus, Satan cannot be an example of a god showing that Christianity is polytheistic, unless you wish to quarrel with my proposition that the question must be answered by looking at the definition that the given religion uses. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
So if Dr Sing thinks Hindu gods qualify as gods in what sense does Satan not also qualify? What is the definition of god in Christianity? Does Satan fit that definition? If not, he's not a Christian god. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3762 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Straggler writes: They don't have to be the same to both qualify as god concepts do they. I'm all for them qualifying as "god concepts" within the boundaries of Hinduism. What I'm not for is applying Hinduism's or Greek mythology's logic to Christianity and pronouncing angels and other superhuman beings as lesser gods or smaller gods than YHWH. Like you imagine, it is most probable that a Hindu would be prone to label satan an evil god, a god nonetheless. However, this does not fit within Christianity because it teaches that God is one. I think we have to go back to where different religions get their conceptions of God from. Just take Hinduism for example, a few gods in it are mere personifications of nature. Ganga, for example is a river in India and yet it is personified as a goddess. The gods Agni, Vayu and Surya are personifications of fire, air and sun respectively. Hanuman the monkey god, is a devotee of Rama (a bigger god) but a god nonetheless. It even elevates certain animals to divine status i.e animals that provide transportation for the gods. All this to say that Hinduism appears to derive its its deities from nature for the most part. However, Christianity's approach to defining god is different (from Hinduism at least). We take the Bible and believe the person who claims to be God in it is the definition of God. IOW, we have no pre-conceived prescriptive idea for God and YHWH fits it; all we know about God is what has been revealed to us in the Bible. We say, the YHWH of the Bible is "God" as we understand. So here you have these two polar opposite conceptions of God that you're trying to mix and match. Doesn't work.
Given that you accept that the Hindu god Lakshmi qualifies as meeting your requirement to be called a "god" can you tell me in what way Satan does not also qualify as a god? First of all, I have no personal requirements of God. Like I said, I have no self-made mould that YHWH perfectly fits into and voila!, becomes my God, no. Second, I never said Lakshmi qualifies for "God" as I, a Christian, would accept. Within the realm of Hindusim, Lakshmi is surely a goddess (as hindusim defines her)...a very prominent one that too. But not within Christianity's worldview. She is not God. God is only one, the most holy YHWH. The "problem" with religion is this, different definitions and ideas...which when people try to mix and match, they complicate lives even more than they already are.
What are the criteria for being accepted as worthy of the term "god"? I think that any such being to whom we can attribute these pre-conceived ideas is most probably not God. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3762 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
5er Subbie, exactly what I was trying to convey.
I think Straggler is failing to realize that different religions have different definitions of god and applying Hinduism's logic in an attempt to provide satan with deity status while also maintaining fundamental Biblical principles is impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3762 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Straggler writes: If what you say is true Christians would consider Muslims, Hindus et al to be atheists. As the Christians would consider all those others as not believing in god(s). No? No. Its kind of sad that I have to remind you (assuming you're one, Straggler) of the definition of your own status. Atheists are people who choose not to believe in the concept of God most often for lack of empirical evidence (not ruling out other reasons though), yes? This is different from choosing to believe a god concept. Which Hindus do. Now to answer your question pretty bluntly, I would say that a Christian would view people of other religions as worshiping false gods i.e imposters that they themselves have created i.e what they think is god. Vice versa with what a hindu or muslim might think of a Christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3762 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Gahh, I feel so bad for posting post after another. I'll stop with this one for now.
Quotes by Straggler.
But if Hindus qualify as theists they must believe in gods. Yes.
If Hindu gods qualify as gods... To whom? is the question. To Muslims? No. To Christians? No. To certain other religions? Maybe.
...then in what sense does satan not [qualify for god]? Without some serious equivocation? Again, to whom? To a hindu? or To a Christian? Or to everybody?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This means that there were no gods, religions or forms of theism (poly or otherwise) prior to Christianity doesn't it? Is that really what you mean? [...] If you think about it you will realise that you are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. No? But slevesque isn't saying that the attitude he describes is his attitude, just that it makes as much sense as the attitude in the OP.
So what is this definition of god that I should be using and how does it do anything but limit theism in it's entirety to Judeo-Christian concepts of god. There isn't one unequivocal definition. It's rather like the word "dragon". We translate various Chinese and Persian words by the English word "dragon", but all they really have in common is being mythical and scaly. Now, when we translate a Greek pagan using the word "θεός" as saying "god", it's not really clear what he does mean. An entity counted as a θεός if it was recognized as a θεός. It wasn't necessarily genetic --- for example, Arion was the child of two θεός-es, but wasn't a θεός himself. Nor does being a powerful mythical entity necessarily qualify one as a θεός --- Prometheus would been a θεός by that criterion, and is also one of the most sympathetic characters in Greek myth. But he's not a θεός, he's a Titan. Really, the concept doesn't translate very well. I suppose we use the word "god" for θεός because it comes closer to it than anything else does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
This means that there were no gods, religions or forms of theism (poly or otherwise) prior to Christianity doesn't it? Is that really what you mean? If you think about it you will realise that you are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. No? See Dr.A response.
So what is this definition of god that I should be using and how does it do anything but limit theism in it's entirety to Judeo-Christian concepts of god. Thus meaning theism of any sort didn't exist until Chrsitianity and terms like polytheism to be utterly meaningless by very definition. For the christian definition of God, refer to theology books I guess. But this doesn't render the word theism useless, theism is a descriptive term for a worldview where the term 'god' is applied to something. Think about it, suppose I created a religion in which cats would be considered divine. Does that make you, who believes cat exists, to suddenly become a theist ? Obviously not, your worldview remains atheistic because you continue tu not view cats as gods. (I presuppose you are atheist, telle me if I'm mistaken) In the same way, the christian worldview does not consider satan to be a god, and therefore remains monotheistic (the trinity is another issue to discuss) even though satan would qualify as a god in another wordlview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
(the trinity is another issue to discuss) Well then, let's discuss it. Father, son and holy ghost equals three. No amount of mental gymnastics or apologetics can change that simple fact. You are a polytheist, Sir! Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3762 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Wishing you all the best Slevesque. What theologians have failed to comprehend throughout ages despite hours of pouring over it, is now up to you to clarify to our atheist friends here. .....uhh, on a internet forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Well then, let's discuss it. Father, son and holy ghost equals three. No amount of mental gymnastics or apologetics can change that simple fact. You are a polytheist, Sir! But I'm not interested in discussing for a simple reason: it won't amount to anything. Because whenever the concept of trinity is explained with more complexity beyond the basic 1+1+1=3, atheist will discard it as being ''mental gymnastics''. But of course, this simplistic view is a strawman of the actual thing, because the trinity concept isn't simple, it's complex. But it's understandable when you put the time and good will to understand it. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
But I'm not interested in discussing for a simple reason: it won't amount to anything. Because whenever the concept of trinity is explained with more complexity beyond the basic 1+1+1=3, atheist will discard it as being ''mental gymnastics''. But of course, this simplistic view is a strawman of the actual thing, because the trinity concept isn't simple, it's complex. You're not kidding.
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
...the trinity concept isn't simple, it's complex. But it's understandable when you put the time and good will to understand it. The last refuge of those who don't understand it themselves. I'd venture to guess that Thomas Jefferson, a reasonably intelligent person, spent a great deal of time and good will studying it before he concluded... Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4834 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Straggler writes: If I define pencils as being "gods" and choose to worship pencils does that make me a theist? Sure, why not. I could make up any kind of new religion or deity today if I wanted to, and as long as it involves worshiping some concept of "god", it is theistic. What is "god"? It could be anything that I'd decide to worship in my new religion, including a pencil. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024