|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You define Mom to be the woman who gave birth to you. Your mom didn't give birth to me. Therefore I don't have a mom.
You must either accept this reasoning, or equivocate. Proceed. 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 Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But what else do you expect from idolatrous infidel pagans but confusion? Expect? I expect Christianic resistance. And I expect to confront it by pointing out their contradictory definitions and assertions. I have replied to your other more interesting post with my own findings on the polytheistic roots of Christianity. And we haven't even got onto ceremonies such as communion and their Dionystic roots yet...... Lots to come in this thread. Aside from berating Christian contradictions. I hope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Subbie writes: You define Mom to be the woman who gave birth to you. Your mom didn't give birth to me. Therefore I don't have a mom. No. I define mums as those who give birth to people. Likewise there is a concept of of god that we all, including Christians when they are discussing theism more objectively, refer to.
Subbie writes: You must either accept this reasoning, or equivocate. Proceed. Wrong. Instead let's consider the "general definition of god" in action shall we?
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
No. I define mums as those who give birth to people. Now you're equivocating. I'm not talking about how you define "mums." I'm talking about how you define "Mum." Your Mum. You've ignored the capitalization I used. An initial capital letter denotes a proper name, the person you refer to as "Mum." In doing this, you're missing the point of my analogy. All religions use the same definition of "god." It's who they say it is. I'm not aware of any religion that lays down a general working definition of what a god is then goes searching for beings that meet that definition. They all define god(s) with a list of beings that they consider god. In the same way, you define "Mum" as the person who gave birth to you, but understand that other people have a different definition specific to themselves. However, any thinking person understands that there are different religions that have different lists. They can then generalize from the different lists and create a generic description that all the different gods meet. Thus, they understand that there are myriad different beings that different religions regard as god, and thus those adherents are not atheist, but at the same time deny that in fact the beings that other religions recognize as god are true gods. But that is not nearly the same thing as equivocation. It is instead recognizing that different religions use different lists of god(s). 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
subbie writes: Right. Except that it doesn't. It also recognizes Jesus and the holy spirit as god as well. Right. Except, they're all of the same substance and always function as a single unit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
So when Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," he was talking to himself, pleading with himself, trying to talk himself into forgiving those who crucified him?
Sure, makes perfect sense. {AbE}
they're all of the same substance Ah. So then Jesus wasn't in human form. Or, are all three human? Edited by subbie, : As noted 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Ah. So then Jesus wasn't in human form. Anticipating an answer from Doc S: "Oh, of course JHC was human! I meant substance, not that shabby-ass unitalicized substance!" Doc S, see if you can do better........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
"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. So, do you have a problem with that? I never told you that those three criteria are hard and fast rules that every god fits. I only said that these are the basic criteria that majority of theists probably will agree on when defingin god. Are there exceptions like Kali? Of course. This is where you leave the general arena and enter into the specifics of Hindusim to find out how it defines gods--and its definition is pretty poorly developed...so guess what, Kali qualifies for god. The god of destruction. When you come out of the arena of Hinduism, and enter into monotheistic religions, you'll find that their definitions are a lot more refined and therefore allow for only one God. You are the first and only person I've met who seems to have a preference (atleast a hypothetical one) for wicked deities. Normal people want to worship good gods....you know, favorable ones. And yet, you seem to to be taken aback when I include the criterion, benevolent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
and its definition is pretty poorly developed I can't say I'm particularly familiar with Hinduism, but isn't its definition exactly as developed as any other religion's? It's a list of beings that Hindus call gods. How is that any more or less well developed than any other religion's list? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3736 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Coragyps writes: Anticipating an answer from Doc S: "Oh, of course JHC was human! I meant substance, not that shabby-ass unitalicized substance!" Doc S, see if you can do better........ I don't get what you're saying. If it was important, I'm sure you'll further explain it to me. If not, we'll just ignore it...
subbie writes: So when Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," he was talking to himself, pleading with himself, trying to talk himself into forgiving those who crucified him? Sure, makes perfect sense. Wow, you're the first person I met to whom the Trinity makes good sense? I don't fully understand it. I believe it. You might not want to believe it...and you have your freedom to disbelieve it, ridicule it, whatever.
Ah. So then Jesus wasn't in human form. Or, are all three human? So physical state = composition? One and the same thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Wow, you're the first person I met to whom the Trinity makes good sense? You may take solace in the fact that you are not the first person to miss sarcasm on the internet.
I don't fully understand it. I believe it. quote:--Stevie Wonder You don't fully understand it. Do you even partially understand it? Is there any part of it that makes any sense at all? Or is it more accurate to say that you simply accept it without questioning it at all just because it makes you feel happy inside as long as you don't ask too many questions?
So physical state = composition? One and the same thing? Sorry, I have no idea what you are saying. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
So physical state = composition? One and the same thing? Outside the demented magic of the religious mind ... uhhh, yeeaahh. duh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The Semang Hunter Gathers as discussed in the book I am currently reading The Evolution of God by Robert Wright are an example of a culture that fuses the concept of the supernatural with the observed without any form of verbal differentiation. I can't find out much about them, but their religious ideas seem conventional enough from what I can find out.
Can we not all broadly recognise such concepts based on common criteria or characteristics? Apparently not, since you think that Satan is a deity and no-one else does.
If you consider the term god without recourse to any particular religion what do you think of? I think of Wittgenstein's discussion of the meaning of the word "game".
Yes - Each religion will impose it's own qualifications and subtleties. But so what? Satan is a god in every way that is used to define gods in every objective use of the term. Not necessarily. For example it would be an objective criterion to require that a "god" should be an object of veneration and worship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Aye - the fossils in the OT are fun to read through. As you might predict, some of them have been discussed here such as Not Influenced by Surrounding Nations , and my notes on the first few books on the OT as a couple of relatively recent ones.
Even the much used phrase "children of Israel" is by many considered better translated as "sons of El". This, however, I've never heard before. Israel was the name Jacob adopted after wrestling with {god/an angel/something else} and he had 12 sons who would form the 12 tribes of Israel. So the Israelites are the descendents of Jacob. It seems 'children of Israel' is the most sensible translation to me - does Wright have something up his sleeve I've not seen before?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Subbie writes: In doing this, you're missing the point of my analogy. Then you are missing the point of my point. 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. Frankly Dr Sing has summed up the contradictory nature of the Christian position on this better than I ever could:
Dr Sing writes:
So Satan is excluded from the general concept of god because the specific Christian doctrine doesn’t like it. 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.Which is analogous to me defining mothers as Those who give birth and then when realising that this will include your mother whom I don’t like hastily adding but your mother doesn’t count because she didn’t give birth to me
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024