|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3757 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Straggler writes: Straggler is well aware that different religions define gods differently. Then why did he say this:
Straggler writes: For example in what sense is Satan less of a god than Apollo or Thor? In what sense is archangel Gabriel any less of a god than Mercury or Dionysius? 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. Doesn't Straggler see that because Greek Mythology defines god differently from Biblical Christianity (as per your own admission in the first quote), it is blatantly wrong to use your false logic to conclude that satan is a god in Christianity?
Straggler writes: 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? 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. This is blatantly inconsistent. Alright, this type of thing is getting to be so common that it deserves a name now. Something to the effect of "atheists' gross misunderstandings of theistic beliefs/ideas produce horribly wrong conclusions". Preferably something more terse than that. We don't say that the fact that majority of people believe in some sort of god IS evidence of the biblical God's existence. We only say that, majority of the people sense the same thing---the need for a supernatural being (not a specific one mind you, just some supernatural being). This widespread need could possibly be an indication that human beings, unless they resist their inner voice, intrinsically know/feel the presence of god. Whether that god is YHWH or someone else...is not the point here. People follow this inner voice of theirs and eventually ascribe to some religion or the other. The fact that majority of people even feel like there should be some sort of supernatural superpower (whoever it may be) is the point here.
Straggler writes: 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. You're straggling farther and farther away, Straggler. First you start out by saying that satan should qualify as god, as per......well, greek mythology and Hinduism's definitions of god. When corrected, you openly admit that you understand that different religions define god differently. However you fail to apply what you proclaim i.e different definitions of god when dealing with different religions. And now you're jollily confusing yourself between atheism and theism saying that according to theists of one particular religion, EVERYONE else (that doesn't subscribe to said religion) automatically becomes a atheist even though you define an atheist as someone who refuses to believe in the concept of god. Now you come to the main point which is: What general criteria do theists expect in a god? There is danger in trygin to answer this question because the answer can take you back to square one: hypothetically, you might find some hindus who say that according to them, a god is 1. superhuman 2. extremely powerful. Does satan qualify? Yes. Alternately, you might find some Christians who say that a god can never be evil. Does satan now qualify? No. There is not concrete set of criteria that ALL theists of ALL religions agree on to define god. However, I think, if you took a general survey (superficial one, not going into deep questions), the top three criteria you're most likely to get are: 1. Omnipotent: Nobody wants a god who can't do everything. 2. Sovereign: Nobody wants a god who can do everything but is subject to someone else 3. Personal: Nobody wants a god who can do everything, is not subject to anyone, yes doesn't so anything for THEM. I think a close contender for num.3 would be 'loving'. (and this is love that encompasses all other virtues like mercy, grace etc): Nobody would want a god who can do everything, is not subject to anyone, is able to do anything for them, but is not enough/always motivated to keep doing things for them. BTW, since a few of you are self-proclaiming deity of yourselves (or given a chance would)...do you fit the minimum expectations of god? I think it gets extremely ridiculous when humans start playing around with the concept of God......ohh, not like God is someone to be revered, is He? Nah, not really.....wow. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : formatting etc Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : for the last time, formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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? I am saying each worldview has it's own criterias. But their are no universal criteria(s) that every god in every theistic worldview must have in order to be theistic. The only thing a worldview needs is to ascribe the term 'god' to something.
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. The christian worldview has it's own personnal definition of god that it uses. That is why it is monotheistic. Now if for some odd reason we would apply a hindu definition of god into the christian worldview, than it would be polytheistic. But that's a rather pointless exercise.
If I define pencils as gods and the Christian god is not a pencil then you become an atheist. No, it means that the christian god is not a god for you, he's just a ...thing. However, I remain a theist because I still hold a theistic worldview. No matter what view you hold of my god it does not matter.
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. Some criteria's appear universal because they naturally come with the idea of 'religious experience', such as that the god in question usually has a supernatural side. However, they are not intrinsically universal as I said earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 The subject at the time was about children indoctrination, not about the existence of God. So I did not make the argument 'to prove God's existence' you are talking about. As to what definition of 'god' was used, it was in a more general manner. I don't know to explicit this, but take this example (from the study in question): Dr. Barrett: "If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God." Dr. Barrett: "If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in a theistic worldview". I hope it's clear. (cause I don't feel it is)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In this thread you say:
Slevesque writes: But their are no universal criteria(s) that every god in every theistic worldview must have in order to be theistic. The only thing a worldview needs is to ascribe the term 'god' to something. And you have thus agreed that I can define god to be pencils and thus myself to be a theist based on believing that pencils exist.But previously you have said: Slevesque writes: I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionary 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 claims Message 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 advocated that belief in god is both innate and culturally universal. Yet you also claim that there are no universal criteria by which god concepts can be recognised and that the term applies to whatever one chooses to ascribe it to. Given both that other cultures have their own words for such concepts and that newborn children are incapable of ascribing the term god to anything at all your stance here is clearly internally inconsistent and contradictory.
Slevesque writes: As to what definition of 'god' was used, it was in a more general manner. Ah the use of the term was used in a general manner. But the general manner of using this term has no universal criteria that can differentiate pencils from any other god concepts or allow us to recognise "god" concepts in other languages and cultures.
I hope it's clear. It is clearly contradictory. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In the context of this thread where you wish to disclude Satan from being godly in any sense you narrowly define the term god to suit that argument. Yet when you are making more broadly pro-theistic arguments and you wish to claim that belief in god is innate or culturally widespread you define the term quite differently and in such a way that Satan would indeed qualify as a god.
And then you have the temerity to accuse me of equivocation?
The subject at the time was about children indoctrination, not about the existence of God. The quotes are from a number of threads in which you advocate both the innateness and cultural universality of human belief in god.
So I did not make the argument 'to prove God's existence' you are talking about. Nobody here is talking about "proving gods existence" at all. I am talking about your equivocation of the term god to suit your differing arguments and the contradictions inherent in these different uses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
No one's biological son. Mary didn't have a baby?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3757 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Cor writes: Mary didn't have a baby? It wasn't Joseph's baby, if you know what I mean. Mary was only a means of delivering a already existing person. Birthing his physical existence i.e adding a physical dimension to his already existent supernatural dimension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
We don't say that the fact that majority of people believe in some sort of god IS evidence of the biblical God's existence Don’t be an idiot. Nobody is saying that all cultures believe in the Christian concept of god. That would be patently ridiculous. The point is that one cannot simultaneously advocate the widespread cultural belief in gods as evidence favouring the theistic position whilst simultaneously asserting that Christianlty is monotheistic because nothing but the narrow Christian version of God qualifies for use of the term god. Most of the cultures being referred to don’t speak English and thus don’t use the term god at all. So when Christians say that other cultures believe in gods what do they mean? How is Satan discluded from that definition of "god"? I'll tell you - By a process of blatant equivocation.
BTW, since a few of you are self-proclaiming deity of yourselves (or given a chance would)...do you fit the minimum expectations of god? Does Satan?
First you start out by saying that satan should qualify as god, as per......well, greek mythology and Hinduism's definitions of god. When corrected, you openly admit that you understand that different religions define god differently. Of course they define gods differently when they want to assert that their particular religion is monotheistic. Their problem is that when they want to say that belief in gods is culturally widespread they contradict their own usage of the term "god". Equivocation and contradiction. Undeniably.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The point is that one cannot simultaneously advocate the widespread cultural belief in gods as evidence favouring the theistic position whilst simultaneously asserting that Christianlty is monotheistic because nothing but the narrow Christian version of God qualifies for use of the term god. But Dr Sing and slevesque have disclaimed this point of view. I don't recall that anyone on this thread has advocated these two contradictory positions. It is true that some theists have advocated one position, and others have advocated the other --- and some theists have been dumb enough to advocate both, but you're not talking to them. If you want to say to Dr Sing and slevesque that such a position would be self-contradictory, then I think they'd agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But Dr Sing and slevesque have disclaimed this point of view. I don't recall that anyone on this thread has advocated these two contradictory positions. Slevesque has indisputably previously advocated the theistic position as being supported by widespread cultural belief in gods and has even promoted the idea that belief in god is innate in humans from birth. However in this thread he has taken the position that there are no universal criteria for god concepts and that god is whatever one ascribes that word to. So I am intrigued as to what new born babies incapable of speech or comprehension are ascribing the word god to. I am also intrigued as to how he recognises that other cultures believe in gods when they do not in fact use the word English word god at all and thus do not ascribe it to anything.
It is true that some theists have advocated one position, and others have advocated the other --- and some theists have been dumb enough to advocate both, but you're not talking to them. Yes I am.
If you want to say to Dr Sing and slevesque that such a position would be self-contradictory, then I think they'd agree. Then let them say that. So far they seem to both want to be able to use the term god such that it would unwittingly include Satan when making their wider pro-theism arguments whilst equivocating on that when it is pointed out that use of the term god in this way blatantly results in Christianity being polytheistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Slevesque has indisputably previously advocated the theistic position as being supported by widespread cultural belief in gods and has even promoted the idea that belief in god is innate in humans from birth. However in this thread he has taken the position that there are no universal criteria for god concepts and that god is whatever one ascribes that word to. I'm not yet seeing a contradiction, though I do see one looming in the distance. Produce some quotes from slevesque and bring him to his knees ... uh ... up from off his knees ... oh, you know what I mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Dr A writes: Produce some quotes from slevesque and bring him to his knees ... uh ... up from off his knees ... oh, you know what I mean. Repeated From Message 81 Slevesque writes: I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionary 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 claims Message 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 And then in this thread:
Slevesque writes: The only thing a worldview needs is to ascribe the term 'god' to something. What is it that new born babies incapable of speech or comprehension are ascribing the word god to? How can it be recognised that other cultures believe in gods when they do not in fact ascribe the English word god to anything at all? What are the conceptual criteria being applied and do the concepts of Satan, archangel Gabriel et el meet these criteria?
Dr A writes: I'm not yet seeing a contradiction, though I do see one looming in the distance. There are blatant contradictions already. But if you have more bring them on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So you have advocated that belief in god is both innate and culturally universal. Yet you also claim that there are no universal criteria by which god concepts can be recognised and that the term applies to whatever one chooses to ascribe it to. Given both that other cultures have their own words for such concepts and that newborn children are incapable of ascribing the term god to anything at all your stance here is clearly internally inconsistent and contradictory. You do realize you are taking quotes from a conversation that is almost a year old and in a vastly different context. But I see where you make an error: in this thread, we are speaking theoretically about theism and what limits the use of the word God. I hve been saying, that in theory, nothing prevents anything from being anyone's god and making him a theist. Now the other year old thread is different, it is a practical research. If you have taken the time to look into the study, you will notice that they narrowed the theoretical use of the word god to have criteria's such as 'supernatural' and 'creator', etc. implicitly attached to it.
Ah the use of the term was used in a general manner. But the general manner of using this term has no universal criteria that can differentiate pencils from any other god concepts or allow us to recognise "god" concepts in other languages and cultures. Yeah well I rather think that the questions the study asked the children naturally narrowed the word 'god' from it's general manner to 'supernatural' and 'creator'
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024