Is Christianity Polytheistic?

In this thread you say: 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: 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. 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. It is clearly contradictory.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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 quotes are from a number of threads in which you advocate both the innateness and cultural universality of human belief in god. 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.

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. Does Satan? 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.

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. Yes I am. 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.

Repeated From Message 81And then in this thread: 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? There are blatant contradictions already. But if you have more bring them on.

Exactly. So what characterises this general definition of the word god? You seem very reluctant to say. In fact you denied this was even possible until I confronted you with your own quotes.When you say ..why then would every culture around the world have the concept of God/Gods? how do you know that this is indeed the case? These other cultures do not necessarily use English. So you must recognise god concepts on the basis of some sort of criteria or characteristics. You cannot rely merely on people ascribing the English word god (as you have claimed up until now in this thread)When you use your general definition of god what sort of concepts do you mean? Does this general definition incorporate pencils? When you talk about theism more objectively you use a definition of god that would include other supernatural entities found in Christian mythology and which would thus make Christianity a form of polytheism.

On what basis do you recognise that these other cultures are citing "god" concepts? What criteria or characteristics do these concepts possess?You cannot rely merely on people ascribing the English word god as many of these cultures do not use English. Of course. That is my point.So what are the recognisable criteria for objectively identifying god concepts regardless of language or culture?

No. That is not what I am saying at all.I am trying to show you that if looked at objectively and from the point of view of no specific religion biblical Christianity is actually an example of polytheism not monotheism. A position which your past comments regarding theism in general fully support.

Of course Christians are going to rebrand the term god to uphold their own self proclaimed assertions. But to anyone not applying the specific Christian definition, including Christians when they are discussing theism more objectively, the term "god" blatantly includes concepts such as Satan. I am not interested (in this thread) in what argument Christians are making when they use the term "god". I am interested only in the concepts that they apply this term to and that the application of said term to indicate that which they would accept as genuine forms of theistic belief. The contradiction arises when they want to apply the term god to the beliefs of other cultures whilst denying that Satan is any form of god. See Slevesque's use of the term in the quotes below (incidentally notice the large G) So is Slevesque talking about the Christian God in these examples? If not what concept of god is he talking about? And why would Satan be discluded from that?

Indeed.I will come back to the more interesting aspects of your latest post shortly but I first want to throw this question out there.Question: If someone believes in the existence of Satan but denies the existence of the Christian God, Jesus or any other supernatural entities do they qualify as a theist?I don't see how the answer can be anything other than 'yes'. But I am intersted to know what others think.

Which is of course a way of you avoiding the question and yet another way for you to avoid the fact that by any objective definition of the concept of Satan does indeed qualify as a god. Precisely.So what are the recognisable criteria for objectively identifying god concepts regardless of language, culture or religious specifics? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

By any objective definition of god - Yes. I had anticipated that one. I ask you how many greek "gods" were involved in creation? Greek creation MythLike many creation myths the world originates from an egg. Not a creator god concept of any sort at all really.So if "god" is that which is the creator I think the Greeks would qualify as atheists. No?

So Satan is excluded from the general concept of god because the specific Christian concept of god won't allow it.Could you make my equivocation point for me any clearer than that?Thanks

Oh FFS. Of course Christians are going to rebrand the term god to uphold their own self proclaimed assertions of monotheism. But to anyone not applying the specific Christian definition, including Christians when they are discussing theism more objectively, biblical Christianity is polytheistic. Not monotheistic. Satan is worshipped.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Just the way I like it. Utterly correct but with it all to prove. Can you tell me which of the Greek gods, Norse gods, Roman gods, Hindu gods or indeed gods from any other forms of polytheism adhere to those criteria.?"Benevolent" in particular seems to be your own personal attempt to subjectively exclude Satan whilst including your own god. But it excludes many many other gods that other cultures have and do believe to be gods.For example is Kali benevolent? Zeus? Aphrodite? Hades? Odin?