Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christianity Polytheistic?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 91 of 375 (564333)
06-09-2010 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Straggler
06-09-2010 8:55 AM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
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?
I am starting to doubt that you have an accurate comprehension of what is equivocation. Equivocation is not having a word have different meanings. It is using a meaning in the wrong context as to make your point.
When I am talking about theism in general, I use a more general definition of god. When I talk about the christian worldview, I use the christian definition. When I talk about the hindu worldview, I use the hindu definition.
You, on the other hand, used the greek definition of god in the christian worldview to declare satan should be considered a 'god'. That is 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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
You are changing the goalpost, this was precisely the argument you said yo usaw christians use, and this is the argument I said I never used.
It is different from citing the widespread belief in god as evidence for the innate nature of religiousness/theistic beliefs over it being simple an indoctrinated behavior. (remember onifre was saying children were born atheists)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 06-09-2010 8:55 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 9:32 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 9:49 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 10:53 AM slevesque has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 92 of 375 (564401)
06-10-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by slevesque
06-09-2010 10:11 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
Slevesque writes:
I am starting to doubt that you have an accurate comprehension of what is equivocation. Equivocation is not having a word have different meanings. It is using a meaning in the wrong context as to make your point.
When I am talking about theism in general, I use a more general definition of god. When I talk about the christian worldview, I use the christian definition. When I talk about the hindu worldview, I use the hindu definition.
You, on the other hand, used the greek definition of god in the christian worldview to declare satan should be considered a 'god'. That is equivocation.
^ That is as clear as anything could be. Well done, Slev.
Straggler, if you continue to beat the dead horse even after this...guess what, we'll say the same thing. However, it will be proven that you are either incapable of understanding theistic ideas or intentionally blind yourself from understanding them for reaosns only you know. Pick one.
As per your rant...here's my succinct statment that you so wanted to hear:
You writes:
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.
If someon is doing that--then obviously, they are have problems.
Most of the cultures being referred to don’t speak English and thus don’t use the term god at all
So language defiens ideas as opposed to ideas define language? What nonsense are you talking, Straggler? I have hindu, muslim, buddhist, and even parsi friends who have a accruate, well defined defition of god....just it would be in a diffetenrt language. But the concept is the same.
you writes:
So when Christians say that other cultures believe in gods what do they mean?
They mean that theists of other cultures all ascribe the concept of supernatural soverignity/deity to
"someone" (could be Vishnu, could be Satya Sai Baba, could be....pencils)
How is Satan discluded from that definition of "god
Here's your answer. Let's pose the same question to a bunch of theists of different religions (and disclaimer: they do not agree on the defintion og "God"):
Hindu: Satan is a powerful,evil god who is the archenemy of YHWH
Muslim: Satan is a false prophet
Christian: Satan was the most powerful angel befoe he sinned and following his fall, he became God's enemy or the devil. He still retains most of his powers that come from being an angel but is ultimatley doomed to destruction.
Budhhist: Satan is a person with very bad intentions whose example is written in the Scriptures so that we strive not to have the same qualities he does.
Are we atleast vaguely seeing the point?
Yes I am.
Then you're hallucinating.
Then let them say that.
Said it. Saying it again, in case you were closing your mind the last time, widepsred belief in god concepts is not evidence for the existence of God. It might be an indication of a commonly recurring feeling of awe or worship which people ascribe to someone or something and term the same as "god."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2010 10:11 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 9:57 AM Pauline has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 93 of 375 (564402)
06-10-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by slevesque
06-09-2010 10:11 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
Slevesque writes:
When I am talking about theism in general, I use a more general definition of god.
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?
Slevesque writes:
When I am talking about theism in general, I use a more general definition of god.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2010 10:11 PM slevesque has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 375 (564403)
06-10-2010 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Pauline
06-10-2010 9:32 AM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
Dr Sing writes:
It might be an indication of a commonly recurring feeling of awe or worship which people ascribe to someone or something and term the same as "god."
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.
Dr Sing writes:
I have hindu, muslim, buddhist, and even parsi friends who have a accruate, well defined defition of god....just it would be in a diffetenrt language. But the concept is the same.
Of course. That is my point.
So what are the recognisable criteria for objectively identifying god concepts regardless of language or culture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 9:32 AM Pauline has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Perdition, posted 06-10-2010 2:50 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 4:52 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 95 of 375 (564409)
06-10-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by slevesque
06-09-2010 10:11 PM


Just To Be Clear...
Slevesque writes:
You, on the other hand, used the greek definition of god in the christian worldview to declare satan should be considered a 'god'.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2010 10:11 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 2:41 PM Straggler has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 375 (564436)
06-10-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Straggler
06-10-2010 10:53 AM


The real equivocation
Monotheistic religion: A religion with only one entity which can be described as a god or godess.
Monotheism: The belief that there exists only one god.
The descriptive and the proscriptive senses you might say. One of them is 'objective' in that it is not about beliefs. The other relies on the adherents belief about the divine.
A person that adheres to monotheism may belong to a religion that another person would describe as polytheistic.
A lot of confusion on this post as people have mixed these things around and talked passed each other.


This is the direction in which I would like this thread to go. An examination of the (possibly) polytheistic roots of Christianity.
Well, the polytheistic roots of Judaism are quite straightforward - but what new stuff do we see in Christianity?
Well there is some influence from Platonism, but I'll just focus on...hell.
The Old Testament simply refers us to the grave as the result of death. But the New Testament refers us to Tartarus and the Lake of Fire.
2 peter 2:4 writes:
For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast [them] down to Tartarus, did deliver [them] to judgment, having been reserved,
The Greek concept of a dark place under the earth where one goes to be punished for crimes taken place upon it. It was also where spiritual enemies of the ruling power would be cast into - so it was filled with very bitter possibly wicked gods and other creatures.
How does someone on Mount Olympus cast someone underneath the earth? Via a pit, a deep Abyss.
Revelation 20:1-3 writes:
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
It has been said that Etna may have led the Greeks to conclude that the underworld had rivers of fire, they didn't have lakes of the stuff. That said, the Egyptians did have lakes of fire in the Book of the Dead (but there's no record the Greeks had access to that).
Just a few random notes, really, something to kick start the ideas - looking for Greek concepts that weren't in the OT that are in the NT...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 10:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:18 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 8:06 PM Modulous has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 97 of 375 (564439)
06-10-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Straggler
06-10-2010 9:57 AM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
So what are the recognisable criteria for objectively identifying god concepts regardless of language or culture?
Different people define the word 'god' in different ways. Sometimes, they will explicitly state what definition they are using, other times, they will implicitly state it. A very easy way to figure out when a Christian is speaking of the Christian definition of a god is when they capitalize the word. If they are speaking of some other definition, they usually don't capitalize it. Now, on an internet forum, capitalization, indeed even punctuation, often fly out the window.
I think most people wuld give some necessary criteria for a god-concept to be: supernatural, creative, and awe-inspiring. Now, different religions offer different additional criteria, but they recognize a kinness with anyone who has at least the minimum requirements. That is how, despite Hindu gods not meeting all the criteria of a Christian god, they can recognize a sort of kindred belief.
They don't believe the Hindu gods are gods, but they can recognize that Hindus have a different set of criteria, and so can say that Hindus are theists. So, based on the minimum requirements for a theistic belief, Satan may be ble to be considered a gid, it is not required of Christians, who have a larger set of criteria, to recognize him as one.
So, while it would be equivocation to say that belief in gods (notice the small 'g') is an indication of the existence of God (large "G"), it is not to say that belief in gods indicates the existence of gods. This is not a logical argumet, however, it does not suffer from equivocation.
I normally agree with many of your posts, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 9:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:12 PM Perdition has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 375 (564445)
06-10-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Perdition
06-10-2010 2:50 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
So, based on the minimum requirements for a theistic belief, Satan may be ble to be considered a gid, it is not required of Christians, who have a larger set of criteria, to recognize him as one.
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.
So, while it would be equivocation to say that belief in gods (notice the small 'g') is an indication of the existence of God (large "G"), it is not to say that belief in gods indicates the existence of gods.
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.
This is not a logical argumet, however, it does not suffer from equivocation.
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)
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 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Perdition, posted 06-10-2010 2:50 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 4:28 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 153 by Perdition, posted 06-11-2010 3:39 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 375 (564446)
06-10-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
06-10-2010 2:41 PM


Re: The real equivocation
A lot of confusion on this post as people have mixed these things around and talked passed each other.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 2:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 4:31 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 4:33 PM Straggler has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 100 of 375 (564449)
06-10-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
06-10-2010 4:12 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
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
Straggler writes:
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?
Slevesque is not talking about the Bible God or YHWH. He is referring to the general concept of god. And for the zillionth time, satan is excluded because Christianity is a monotheistic religion which defines God as one person or one person as God--YHWH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:48 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 119 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 8:21 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 101 of 375 (564450)
06-10-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
06-10-2010 4:18 PM


Re: The real equivocation
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?
Within the domain of Christianity, the existence of satan (and indeed, everything else) is tied with the existence of God. So hypothetically, if someone was thinking was you just said, I would think he's out of his mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:36 PM Pauline has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 102 of 375 (564451)
06-10-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
06-10-2010 4:18 PM


Re: The real equivocation
I will come back to the more interesting aspects of your latest post shortly but I first want to throw this question out there.
Modesty aside, allow me to to add to your burden.
Is it consistent for a Christian to call the Ancient Greeks polytheistic without somehow conceding they are too? Not necessarily. If Christians define a god as a being responsible for the Creation - then the Greeks were polytheistic and Satan is not a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:43 PM Modulous has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 375 (564452)
06-10-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Pauline
06-10-2010 4:31 PM


Re: The real equivocation
Dr Sing writes:
So hypothetically, if someone was thinking was you just said, I would think he's out of his mind.
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.
Dr Sing writes:
I have hindu, muslim, buddhist, and even parsi friends who have a accruate, well defined defition of god....just it would be in a diffetenrt language. But the concept is the same.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 4:31 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 4:53 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 104 of 375 (564454)
06-10-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Modulous
06-10-2010 4:33 PM


Creation "gods"
Mod writes:
Is it consistent for a Christian to call the Ancient Greeks polytheistic without somehow conceding they are too?
By any objective definition of god - Yes.
Mod writes:
If Christians define a god as a being responsible for the Creation - then the Greeks were polytheistic and Satan is not a god.
I had anticipated that one. I ask you how many greek "gods" were involved in creation?
Greek creation Myth
Like 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 4:33 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 5:06 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 105 of 375 (564456)
06-10-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Pauline
06-10-2010 4:28 PM


Thanks
He is referring to the general concept of god. And for the zillionth time, satan is excluded because Christianity is a monotheistic religion which defines God as one person or one person as God--YHWH.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 4:28 PM Pauline has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2010 5:02 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 121 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 8:34 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024