Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christianity Polytheistic?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 121 of 375 (564528)
06-10-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Straggler
06-10-2010 4:48 PM


Re: Thanks
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 8:44 PM subbie has replied

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


Message 122 of 375 (564530)
06-10-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
06-10-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Creation "gods"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2010 5:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 123 of 375 (564531)
06-10-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by subbie
06-10-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Thanks
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 8:34 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 9:07 PM Straggler has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 124 of 375 (564533)
06-10-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Straggler
06-10-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Thanks
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 8:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 06-11-2010 6:37 AM subbie has replied

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


Message 125 of 375 (564535)
06-10-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by subbie
06-10-2010 8:21 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 8:21 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 9:27 PM Pauline has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 126 of 375 (564537)
06-10-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Pauline
06-10-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 9:22 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Coragyps, posted 06-10-2010 9:46 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 130 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 10:41 PM subbie has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 127 of 375 (564538)
06-10-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by subbie
06-10-2010 9:27 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
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........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 9:27 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 128 of 375 (564539)
06-10-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Straggler
06-10-2010 5:03 PM


"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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 5:03 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 10:40 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 161 by Straggler, posted 06-12-2010 12:36 AM Pauline has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 129 of 375 (564540)
06-10-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Pauline
06-10-2010 10:34 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 10:34 PM Pauline has not replied

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


Message 130 of 375 (564541)
06-10-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by subbie
06-10-2010 9:27 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 9:27 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 10:51 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 132 by AZPaul3, posted 06-10-2010 11:26 PM Pauline has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 131 of 375 (564543)
06-10-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Pauline
06-10-2010 10:41 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
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:
When you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer.
--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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 10:41 PM Pauline has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 132 of 375 (564550)
06-10-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Pauline
06-10-2010 10:41 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
So physical state = composition?
One and the same thing?
Outside the demented magic of the religious mind ...
uhhh, yeeaahh.
duh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Pauline, posted 06-10-2010 10:41 PM Pauline has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 133 of 375 (564561)
06-10-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
06-10-2010 8:31 PM


Re: Thanks
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 8:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 06-11-2010 6:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 134 of 375 (564592)
06-11-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Straggler
06-10-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Polytheistic Roots of Christianity
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 8:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 06-11-2010 8:34 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 183 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 11:20 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 06-15-2010 6:15 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 135 of 375 (564603)
06-11-2010 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by subbie
06-10-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Thanks
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:
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.
So Satan is excluded from the general concept of god because the specific Christian doctrine doesn’t like it.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 9:07 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by subbie, posted 06-11-2010 10:35 AM 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