Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Why does it matter what Chrsitians assert? Christians also insist that there trinity is one god. But you don't have any problem telling they are wrong on that. So why do you suddenly give them last word on whether or not Satan qualifies as a god concept? Assertion: Bob is an atheist. bob doesn't believe in the existence of gods.However Bob does believe that teacups are the physical manifestation of supernatural conscious beings who watch over us and make good or bad things happen to us depending on how well we treat our teacups and whether or not we correctly perform the tea drinking rituals passed down through antiquity. Bob's personal diary describes these beliefs in full.If you were an anthropologist would you conclude that Bob is a theist or an atheist? Would you base your decision on his assertion? Or on the evidence as to what Bob's beliefs actually consist of? Biblical Christian Assertion: Both Satan and Yahweh exist but only one of them is a god. Vishnu, Kali, Baal, Thor, Loki et al are false gods because they do not exist.Now look at Satan in comparison to all the other concepts that we label as "god". Compare the concept of Satan with any of the vast array of such concepts tha humanity has come up with, ancient and modern, powerful and benign.Tell me how an anthropologist would not consider biblical Christianity to be polytheistic based on it's belief in (at least) two such concepts regardless of the assertions of Christians themselves about Satan's godly status.Explain that to me.

So how would we determine whether a newly dsicovered culture believed in something we would call a "god"? The godly status of Satan has nothing to do with other religions.It has to do with meeting the same objective criteria to be labelled with the term "god" as do all those other concepts that we happily call as such (but that Christians don't believe to actually exist).Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The difference being that no anthropologist studying a new human culture would conlude that believing in pencils qualified ones culture as theistic.However a newly discovered culture that believes in a horned fiery supernatural entity which tortures wicked people in a lake of fire for all eternity after they die probably would be classed as theistic. No?

I already have.I'm only going to go through this once more, so please read carefully.Religions don't define their gods by crafting a general definition then look for beings that meet it. They define their gods by listing them. That's why Satan isn't a god in Christianity any more than Christ is a god in Islam.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt 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

So how would we determine whether a newly dsicovered culture believed in something we would call a "god"?

Speak for everyone except yourself. Well, how do you do this?Present some objective definition for identifying a god. Then we'll see if it include the tooth fairy, ghosts, gravity, natural selection, the river Ganges, and funny-shaped rocks. When I discuss theism objectively, I would say that pencils are the gods of pencil-worshipers. And I believe in the existence of pencils. But that doesn't make me a polytheist, because pencils are not my gods.

Are you suggesting we haven't identified god concepts in different cultures?A newly discovered culture that believes in a horned fiery supernatural entity which tortures wicked people in a lake of fire for all eternity after they die would probably would be classed as theistic and said entity as a "god". No? Well what would you say is common to all the concepts that we do label as "god" and how does Satan not qualify?

I'm suggesting that you do it differently from everyone else. That would depend on their attitude to him. Consider the following scenario.On examination, you find that they believe in a class of beings known collectively as the vespuna. There is the vespu Kathru, who made the stars and guides fishermen; there is the vesp Hanr-s-moqs, who brings the harvest and makes women fruitful; there is the vesp Duhr, who is invoked when brewing the qersu, an alcoholic drink consumed ritually at festivals; there is the vespu Doghru, who brings luck in the hunt ... and so forth.You then ask them about this horned being (whom we shall call Qaghru). Is he one of the vespuna? you ask them. No, not at all, they reply, deeply shocked. After they have purified your impious mouth with the sacred salt and the ritual of yashn, they explain that Qaghru is by no means a vespu, but rather the chief enemy of the vespuna. Well what is he then? you ask. He is the leader of the qaghruna, they reply. Who are the qaghruna? you ask Well, they say, besides Qaghru, there's the qaghru Meknu, who blights the crops; the qaghr Gint, who causes cot-death, jealous of those who bear children; the qaghru Yentu, who brings nightmares ... and so on.So, what is the best English translation of (a) vespuna and (b) qaghruna? Do these people believe in (a) gods and (b) more gods --- or do they believe in (a) gods and (b) devils? (For bonus points, what is their word for "goddesses"?)Well, what would you say is common to all the concepts that we label as "a game"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No idea, I'm not an anthropologist. But I can tell you this: if someone in that new culture told me, "We worship Jerry Lewis as god, but Dean Martin isn't god," my first conclusion wouldn't be that Dean Martin is one of their gods.Edited by subbie, : Clarity

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt 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

Well if you want to understand my point in this thread maybe you should try and consider what an anthropologist looking at this question dispassionately and from a religion-independent point of view would see looking at the bible.How could they possibly not conclude that the whole Yahweh/Christ Vs Satan/Anti-Christ thing is anything but good gods vs bad gods regardless of what labels the particular followers of any particular aspect might assert? Polytheism isn't about worship. It is about belief. If the culture believes that both Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis exist then how do we establsish whether they consider any of them to be gods?Are Satanists who worship Satan but believe in the existence of both Satan and Yahweh polytheists?I would say obvioulsy so. Your argument in this thread is that each religion defines it's own gods but that yahweh and Christ count as two Christian gods despite what Christians say whilst Satan and the anti-Christ don't count as any gods because Christians say so.I'm sorry Subbie but this is contradictory bollocks.

Do you agree that those who worship Satan but also believe in the existence of Yahweh are polytheists?How could anyone looking at the bible objectively and from the point of view of no particular religion possibly not conclude that the whole Yahweh/Christ Vs Satan/Anti-Christ thing is anything but good gods vs bad gods regardless of what labels particular followers might assert in silly internal acts of partisanship? I would suggest that an anthropologist looking at this dispassionately and from a religion-independent point of view wouldn't get too hung up on the internal distinctions being made by individual sects or shcisms and would class the culture as blatantly polytheistic.Why are you insisting on seeing every god through the eyes of a believer? Why can't you step back and see that Satan and the anti-Christ are just the bad gods in the Christian good god Vs bad god scenario?This is obvioulsy the case regardless of the silly labels those too embroiled in their own beliefs place on individual elements.Frankly I expected better of you.

I'd have to ask them a few questions first.If I believed that there was no god but Allah, and also believed in the existence of pencils, would that make me a polytheist? Would the answer depend in any way on whether pencil-worshipers exist, and if so, why? Apparently, by virtue of being absolutely anyone in the whole world except you. Well of course they're polytheistic --- I invented them, I should know. They do not believe in one vespu, but in a whole vespuntanu of vespuna.The question is, should we translate as follows:vespuna = gods
qaghruna = godsOr should we translate:vespuna = gods
qaghruna = demonsYou ducked the question. It was not rhetorical. How would you translate the two terms? Would you really translate them both by the word "gods"? I try to understand the concepts of another culture by understanding the concepts of another culture because I don't know any other way to understand the concepts of another culture except by understanding the concepts of another culture. Uh ... because they aren't? You did, did you? Then it's worth thinking about why I disappointed you in this fashion. Have I, by disagreeing with you, suddenly and inexplicably fallen below my usually impeccable intellectual standards, contrary to your expectations of me ... or are you wrong?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Are those Christians who worship Mary mother of God polytheists? Such as? Satanists don't seem to query the godly status of Yahweh. They simply worship Satan rather than any of the other biblical characters. You are ducking the question. Again. Actually no. I let you get away with ducking and re-inventing my question. So I will ask it again in such a way as to try and avoid that this time.A newly discovered culture that believes in a horned fiery supernatural entity which tortures wicked people in a lake of fire for all eternity after they die would probably would be classed as theistic and said entity as a "god". No?The nature of this discovery are some poem extracts, some pictorial evidence and some archaeological finds in burial sites. They pre-date any form of Judaism currently known and have been found in the South Pacific. This is a far more realistic scenario than the one you are trying to shoehorn in. I don't need to define "life" to recognise that a caterpillar is a form of life. I don't need to define "game" to see that if I invent a past-time that involves moving pieces on a board following a set of rules such that two competing participants can vie to win is a "game".Likewise we don't need a specific cast iron one sentance definition of "god" to recognise Satan as such. Apparently not. See below. And anyway since when did argumentum ad populum hold any sway with you?

Well, as I said, I'm no anthropologist, but if you read carefully, you might notice where I said that the people of the culture told you Dean Martin isn't god. Now, a really clever person might pick up on that subtle point and be able to suss out the fact that they don't think that Dean Martin is god. Coming from a person who is unable to read the sentence "Dean Martin is not a god." and conclude from it that Dean Martin is not a god, I'm strangely comforted by the fact that you call my position bollocks.I've come to the conclusion that there's something in you that prevents your brain from actually working when it comes to this topic. I suggest you seek professional help. Since I am not a professional in this field, I don't think there's anything more that I can do for you.

---

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 JeffersonFor 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 ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt 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

Yeah, they don't have a problem telling us we're wrong about the Trnity being one God because they think our reasoning is messed up. They are not trying to manipulate our definitions, like you are....and that too, using Greek Mythology's definitions of all things.1+1+1=3 has got to be universally true , yes? (unlike the definition of god which varies (and is allowed to) from religion to religion, Straggler). No matter what corner of the planet you're on, what ethnicity you belong to, what profession you're in, what culture yours is...3 entities are 3 entities. This truth does not vary and is NOT allowed to vary...even if you're Christian. This is the point atheists are trying to make to us. Its a matter of reasoning. I can see why such an argument is valid. But your equivocation is simply a huge confusion party.