|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
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? Indeed. The argument seems to be popular because of the limited amount of thought involved - because cultures throughout history have "believed in god(s)," surely this means that some form of god should exist - they couldn't all be deluded, how else could one explain such a broad similarity of belief? The problem with such a line of reasoning is that the comparison of beliefs stops at the word "god." Each culture's definition of "god" tends to vary wildly. You certainly cannot compare Zeus with Yahweh with Quetzalcoatl. They have next to nothing in common beyond being "supernatural" and having human worshipers - which brings us back to the question, "what's a god, anyway?" If you're argument rests on commonality of belief, those beliefs had damned better have lots in common beyond the word "god." Of course, even an argument suggesting that commonality of belief is evidence for actuality is simply an absurd argument from popularity in itself. Nearly everyone across countless independent cultures thought the Earth was flat...and that was simply evidence that the Earth looks flat from a local perspective if you don't think too hard about common observations suggesting curvature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3399 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
Christians sure behave as if they believed in a multiplicity of gods. They do pray to saints and Mary. They do expect angels to aid them.
All that guff about the trinity is just used to hide the presence of multiple gods in their old book. (And to keep people in line by keeping them confused.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
Christians sure behave as if they believed in a multiplicity of gods. They do pray to saints and Mary. They do expect angels to aid them. All that guff about the trinity is just used to hide the presence of multiple gods in their old book. (And to keep people in line by keeping them confused.) Well, not all Christians pray to saints. Determining actual belief based on actions and expectations leads down an unfortunate road for theists. By their actions, they anticipate as if no gods exist. As an example, I'll use our friend, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. If I say that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is in a stable down the road, you'll want to go take a look. I respond "you can't see it, it's invisible." You'll then want to touch it, to confirm that this invisible unicorn is present. "But it's intangible, your hand will pass right through," I'll respond. I am anticipating as if the unicorn does not exist; what I expect to happen in any test is identical to the unicorn not existing at all. It's what you anticipate to happen when your beliefs are not supported that shows what you actually believe. Theists tend to behave the same way. Unanswered prayer? "God works in mysterious ways." Thorough double-blind study showing no statistically significant effect of prayer or religion on recovery from illness? "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Angel didn't save your son from that car wreck? "God wanted to take him home." What they expect to happen in any given test is identical to what would happen if no gods existed. The actions and expectations of the faithful show that they think it is good to believe, but that they do not actually believe, in any deity at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
From the Wiki page on Elohim:
quote: Just as a quickie as I'm short on time, my understanding is that ethnic Hebrews are an offshoot of the indigenous Canaanites (descending from those whom the Bible says they conquered). The terminology and mythology of Genesis seems to borrow extensively from other older cultures in that area (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh). Genesis and Exodus (off the top of my head) use language that acknowledges other gods and simply states Elohim's superiority over them and demands exclusivity of worship. Only much later with Christianity is the actual existence of other deities denied and replaced with the idea of the deception of fallen angels. 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. But that's my take on the (admittedly limited) anthropological evidence I'm aware of, and the etymology of relevant words like "Elohim," as described above. I'd love to hear from people more well-read on the subject than I.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Actually in the fast paced world of personal theistic belief things have moved on. I have now defined god to be - me. * ritually sacrifices the blasphemer with a very sharp pencil * It's mightier than the sword, you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 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.
It seems to me that Christians want to be able to say that the majority of humanity believes in god whilst simultaneously defining god such that it excludes everyone but them. I have no doubt that there are some Christians who do that. I also have no doubt that there are some who do not. So what?
This is blatantly inconsistent. Inconsistency from a believer. Quelle surprise. Edited by subbie, : Tyop 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) 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 (Idle past 91 days) 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 (Idle past 91 days) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I define myself to be god. I believe that I exist. Am I now a theist? 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.
So by your world view (incorporating the Christian definition of god) are Hindus atheists? Or not? Yes they are theists, because they apply the word 'god' to something. If they are right or wrong in doing so is irrelevant for them being theists. I understand your logic, but it is flawed because you equivocate as I stated in my first message. 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. AbE I don't use the argument you are referring to (god exists because people in ancient times believed in god(s)) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8546 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
If they are false gods they presumably still meet the criteria for being gods. So in what sense is Satan not also a god? The "others" gods are gods because the "others" so define their gods. They do not fit the christian conception of god so to the christian they are false gods. Satan is not a god since the christians do not consider him a god. Inconsistent or not, it is their religion and they have the right to say which of their manifestations are gods and which are merely angels or saints or whatever.
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? Straggler, you're looking for logical consistency in a religion?"Logical Consistency" and "religion" do not play well together. You know this. When faced with an atheist claiming their god is as false as all others the religionist will use whatever comes to their tiny little minds by way of defense.
quote: Again, the logic of religion. The christian gets to say what is a god and what is not within their own creed. They also get to claim, as all religions do, that some other creed's views and their gods are bogus, false and blasphemous.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) 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 (Idle past 91 days) 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024