|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I define myself to be god.
I believe that I exist. Am I now a theist?
I presuppose you are atheist, telle me if I'm mistaken Well I used to be. Until I defined myself as god.
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. So by your world view (incorporating the Christian definition of god) are Hindus atheists? Or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What is the definition of god in Christianity? Presumably one that includes only the Christian version of god.
Does Satan fit that definition? If not, he's not a Christian god. Do Hindu gods fit the Christian definition of god? No. So how can a Christian consider a Hindu to be a theist? When a Christian says that people all over the world have believed in gods throughout history which definition of god are they suing and how does Satan not fit the bill?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If Hindu gods qualify as gods then in what sense does satan not? Without some serious equivocation? To whom? is the question. To Muslims? No. To Christians? No I have repeatedly been told by numerous Christians on this site (possibly even yourself) that belief in god is globally widespread and ancient. Whose definition of god were they talking about? And in what sense does Satan not fit the bill? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What does the standard definition of "theist" have to do with a christian's view that their god is the only one and all other "theists" worship false gods? If they are false gods they presumably still meet the criteria for being gods. So in what sense is Satan not also a god?
Just because one is a christian does not mean they have a different definition for "pencil" from a hindu, does it? Why would they differ in their definition of "theist"? Where they differ is in saying this "theism" has false beliefs while my "theism" is the one and only real thing. OK. So when the Christians on this site repeatedly tell me that belief in gods is universal and ancient what definition of god are they using and how does it exclude Satan as being a god? Do you see the problem here? They cannot have it both ways can they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: The bible contains a whole host of angels, demons and supernatural characters that are gods in all but name and which in other mythologies would be given that title. Possibly, but Christians have never regarded these characters as Gods. They don't have anything like the same role as the Christian God. OK. But are they consistent in their use of the term god?
Why must a 'supernatural character' be a God? They aren't necessarily the same thing at all. Again - I am continually confronted with Christians on this site who tell me that belief in god is near universal and ancient. When they say this what definition or criteria are they using that excludes Satan from being called a god? Are they being inconsistent? Are they equivocating on the term "god" to suit their argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You and I have both seen Christians here repeatedly cite widespread belief in gods as some sort of evidence for the actual existence of god.
Now you and I would agree that this position has some serious evidential problems. But those problems aside, this position isn't even internally consistent. When Christians say that there is widespread belief in gods what definition of god are they using and how can it possibly exclude Satan as meeting whatever criteria are being imposed?
I think a far more interesting conversation would be to question whether modern monotheistic religions have polytheistic roots from an archeological and anthropological standpoint. Yes - I have been flicking through The Evolution of God by Robert Wright and thata is indeed what I hope this thread will evolve into.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
All hail the mighty pencil! Actually in the fast paced world of personal theistic belief things have moved on. I have now defined god to be - me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Good points.
So (to anyone who knows about such things) what are the historical roots specifically of Chrsitianity and are they polytheistic? I will look some stuff up but as a starting point the general trend seems to be - Polytheism, polytheism with a sort of chief god, the amalgamation of polytheistic faiths as cultures collide and combine, individual god concepts amalgamated to create less but more powerful gods and then a sort of chief god with many aspects that ultimately gets called "monotheistic" whilst still retaining strong polytheistic elements. A theistic version of a "grand unified theory" if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How many times have you seen believers here at EvC cite widespread belief in gods as some sort of evidence for the actual existence of gods? And the answer to that argument is that if there were a real god behind all those myriad beliefs, there would be more agreement in the various religions than there is. That is one (although far from the most relevant) of the multiplicity of arguments against that position.
I have no doubt that there are some Christians who do that. It is them that I am primarily addressing in this thread.
I also have no doubt that there are some who do not. Then they needn't consider themselves as being inconsistent. In this respect at least.
So what? So their inconsistency has been exposed. Isn't that what we do around here?
Inconsistency from a believer. Quelle surprise. Indeed. But it doesn't hurt to point this out from time to time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
For that piece of inspired wit I promote you to also be a god. Except that as Straggleranity is self defined as a monotheistic religion you can't actually be called a "god". This isn't equivocation. It is just the right of every religion to self define "god" such that it's claims to monotheism are falsely preserved. So if you wanna be an actual god you will have to form a schism movement and we'll have a 'god-off'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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. Straggler is a god (by his own definition). Not an idiot by his own definition). Straggler is well aware that different religions define gods differently. The point that you are blatantly missing is that one cannot cite widespread belief in god(s) as more general evidence in favour of theistic belief whilst simultaneously defining god to exclude all gods other than ones own. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The "others" gods are gods because the "others" so define their gods. I have defined myself as a god. I believe that I exist. Therefore I am now a theist and fellow believer. Thunderbolts at dawn for anyone who doubts me.
They cannot have it both ways can they? Of course they can. All religionists can. That's why we get to make fun of them. Shhhhh. Don't tell them that. It'll ruin the fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: I define myself to be god.I believe that I exist. Am I now a theist? Slev writes: I have defined the word ''theism'' in message no39 as a descriptive term for a worldview in which the term 'god' is applied to something. So in your hypothetical scenario, yes theism would describe your worldview. Slev writes: Please stop repeating the same reasoning over and over again, it won't make it right. Everybody here has being trying to tell you as clearly as possible why it is flawed. If you are happy that simply defining myself as god or worshiping bog standard pencils as defined godly entities qualifies as a genuine form of theism then fair enough. I suspect that most believers have more stringent criteria for that which would qualify as a "god" even if it does not meet their narrow religious view of the "one true god". It is those generic criteria I was getting at. It is those generic criteria that Satan (I am sure) will meet and on which the equivocation will thus be required. But you personally have stated that you have no such criteria and that I can just as justifiably worship a pencil as being god as I can Vishnu. That is your position - Yes?
AbE I don't use the argument you are referring to (god exists because people in ancient times believed in god(s)) Not just ancient. The widespread belief in gods (false or otherwise) in the present is just as cited and just as relevant. Have you ever mentioned that in support of the validity of belief in god at all? If not - good for you.
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. Actually no. It doesn't remain monotheistic at all does it? If what you say above is true then Christianity is both monotheistic and polytheistic and even atheistic depending on whose definition of god you use. If I define pencils as gods and the Christian god is not a pencil then you become an atheist. The resounding stupidity of which suggests that it is NOT just a case of "all personal definitions are equally valid" and that there are some sort of universal criteria applied to the term "god" even if you are not willing to consider or specify what those criteria might be. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It seems to me that the Hebrews were simply one cultural branch of the Canaanites who exclusively worshiped their tribal deity (while not claiming that theirs was the only deity), and that this exclusivity of worship gradually turned to belief in dominance over other deities, and finally the idea that the tribal deity was in fact the only real deity, and all others were simply pretenders. This is the direction in which I would like this thread to go. An examination of the (possibly) polytheistic roots of Christianity. If there are any history/archaeology buffs out there some informed opinion on this would be most welcome. I will get round to looking some of this stuff up myself soon.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I have been looking through your EvC posts and it seems that you are as guilty of using the term "god" in such a way as to contradict your position in this thread as many others are.
In this thread Slevesque says:
quote: Yet in other threads you have said the following:
Slevesque writes: Although I disagree on one point. I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionnary theory. The belief in a particular God/Gods is of course acquired knowledge though. Message 75 Slevesque writes: Well the main point is just the title: Children are born believers in God academic claimsMessage 92 Slevesque writes: What I have claimed is at the very least probable, since why then would every culture around the world have the concept of God/Gods ?Message 84 So you have previously advocated the positions that belief in god is innate in humans, children are born believing in god and that every culture around the world have the concept of God/Gods. What definition of god or "gods" were you using when you were making these arguments? How does the concept of Satan not meet whatever criteria you were applying in these cases? Be explicit and try not to equivocate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024