Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 181 of 375 (564939)
06-13-2010 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Straggler
06-13-2010 6:10 AM


Re: Good Gods Vs Bad gods
Are those Christians who worship Mary mother of God polytheists?
No.
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.
You are not providing me with enough information to answer the question.
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?
Again, you are not providing me with enough information to answer the question.
I, on the other hand, have given you ample information to answer my question. Would you like to take a shot at it?
Likewise we don't need a specific cast iron one sentance definition of "god" to recognise Satan as such.
Except that most people don't recognize Satan as a god. Which is why I want to hear how you're defining "god".
And anyway since when did argumentum ad populum hold any sway with you?
When it comes to the meaning of words, what else is there to go on? If everyone thinks that "cat" means cat, then they're right. If they all thought it meant dog, they'd also be right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Straggler, posted 06-13-2010 6:10 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 11:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 375 (564993)
06-14-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Straggler
06-12-2010 1:43 AM


Re: Thanks
Are you suggesting we haven't identified god concepts in different cultures?
The issue is that you are taking a very large inferrential leap here. You are essentially claiming that because Satan has attributes that could be likened to God, that we must therefore conclude that Christianity is polytheistic.
That's a very large jump in reasoning.
Could it be possible that Christianity stole or borrowed from polytheistic religions? Yes, I think one could make a reasonable case for that. But you are saying that because Satan has supernatural elements to him, he's therefore a god by your standards, without taking in to account what the story attributes to him.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 06-12-2010 1:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 183 of 375 (565018)
06-14-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Modulous
06-11-2010 3:28 AM


Re: Polytheistic Roots of Christianity
Hey Mod
Mod writes:
This, however, I've never heard before.
Here is the extract from Wright’s book regarding the whole ‘children of Israel’/’sons of El’ translation (sorry later than intended — been busy).
Here is the explicit quote:
Robert Wright writes:
Some scholars who have used the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint to reconstruct the authentic version of the verse say that children of Israel was stuck in as a replacement for sons of El.
Here is the wider context:
Robert Wright writes:
Consider this innocent-sounding verse from the thirty-second chapter of Deuteronomy as rendered in the King James Version, published in 1611:
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
This verse, though a bit obscure, seems to say that Godcalled the Most High in one place and the Lord in anothersomehow divided the world’s people into groups and then took an especially proprietary interest in one group, Jacob’s. But this interpretation rests on the assumption that Most High and the Lord do both refer to Yahweh. Do they?
The second termthe Lorddefinitely does; this is the Bible’s standard rendering of the original Hebrew Yhwh. But might Most HighElyonrefer to [the Canaanite god] El? It’s possible; the two words appear togetherEl Elyonmore than two dozen times in the Bible. What moves this prospect from possible toward probable is the strange story behind another part of this verse: the phrase children of Israel.
The King James edition got this phrase from the Masoretic Text, a Hebrew edition of the Bible that took shape in the early Middle Ages, more than a millennium after Deuteronomy was written. Where the Masoretic Textthe earliest extant Hebrew Biblegot it is a mystery. The phrase isn’t found in either of the two much earlier versions of the verse now available: a Hebrew version in the Dead Sea Scrolls and a Greek version in the Septuagint, a pre-Christian translation of the Hebrew Bible.
Why would some editor have invented the phrase? Was something being covered up?
Some scholars who have used the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint to reconstruct the authentic version of the verse say that children of Israel was stuck in as a replacement for sons of El. With that lost phrase restored, a verse that was cryptic suddenly makes sense: Elthe most high god, Elyondivided the world’s people into ethnic groups and gave one group to each of his sons. And Yahweh, one of those sons, was given the people of Jacob. Apparently at this point in Israelite history (and there’s no telling how long ago this story originated) Yahweh isn’t God, but just a godand a son of God, one among many.
So how does Yahweh rise through the ranks? How does a god initially consigned to a lower level of the pantheon eventually merge with the chief god, El, and even, in a sense, supplant him?
And here is a link to that entire extract: Sons of El
Back to the debate later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Modulous, posted 06-11-2010 3:28 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 06-16-2010 8:52 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 184 of 375 (565020)
06-14-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Good Gods Vs Bad gods
So let me get this straight.
If I pray to, sanctify and venerate bog standard non-supernatural wooden pencils and I term these practises as worship you will consider pencils as gods and thus class me as a theist.
If I pray to, sanctify and venerate bog-standard non-supernatural wooden pencils in a manner identical to the above but insist that I am not actually worshipping pencils then I remain an atheist.
If Christians pray to, sanctify, venerate and worship (in all but name) a supernatural heavenly Mary - That does NOT qualify as god worship and they remain monotheists.
Can you confirm that this rather ridiculous exercise in definitional relativism is indeed your position in this thread or explain to me where I have misunderstood your argument?
Except that most people don't recognize Satan as a god.
You seem determined to take self asserted distinctions of nomenclature designed by Christians to convince themselves that they are monotheists and elevate them into some sort of conceptual difference that should be objectively applied by everybody else. Why would anyone aside from Christians attempting to delude themselves about the polytheistic roots of their own religion take any notice of such internal and blatantly partisan distinctions at all?
The only reason Christianity is nominally monotheistic is because it has gone through a process of My god is better than your god. In fact your god is so rubbish and mine so wonderful that we are not even going to call your god a god anymore. Nah nah nah nah. It really has nothing to do with any absence of multiple god concepts being absent from the bible. Satan blatantly being one of them by any remotely objective conceptual measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2010 10:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 10:10 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2010 6:10 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 185 of 375 (565021)
06-14-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by subbie
06-13-2010 9:23 AM


Re: Teacups and Satanity
Given that you have made worship your be all and end all criteria here - Are those Christians who worship the virgin Mary as well as God polytheists?
If you asked Christians to list the individual gods they believe in you would get a one word answer. Yet you insist that they believe in three separate entities as opposed to three aspects of one. If you are going to look at the trinity through objective, rather than purely Christian, eyes you can hardly insist that I must adhere to the nomenclature based hand waving of Christians with regard to the blatantly evil-god-in-all-but name concept of Satan can you now?
Christianity is polytheistic in all but it’s own self asserted and highly partisan nomenclature. Biblical Christians are simply deluding themselves otherwise through the imaginative use of terminology. This is equally as true with regard to the status of Satan, Gabriel, heavenly Mary et al as it is the trinity.
Calling me names doesn’t make your position on this any less inconsistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by subbie, posted 06-13-2010 9:23 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 186 of 375 (565027)
06-14-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hyroglyphx
06-14-2010 9:07 AM


Joe The Satanist - Is He Polytheistic?
How do anthropologists objectively recognise forms of theism and concepts of gods?
If you want to understand my point in this thread 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. Imagine an alien anthropologist studying all forms of human theism from the far flung future after the human race has long disappeared
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 individual religion might partisanly assert?
Could it be possible that Christianity stole or borrowed from polytheistic religions? Yes, I think one could make a reasonable case for that. But you are saying that because Satan has supernatural elements to him, he's therefore a god by your standards, without taking in to account what the story attributes to him.
Not my standards.
You seem determined to take self asserted distinctions of nomenclature designed by Christians to convince themselves that they are monotheists and elevate them into some sort of conceptual difference that should be objectively applied by everybody else. Why would anyone aside from Christians attempting to delude themselves about the polytheistic roots of their own religion take any notice of such internal and blatantly partisan distinctions at all?
The only reason Christianity is nominally monotheistic is because it has gone through a process of My god is better than your god. In fact your god is so rubbish and mine so wonderful that we are not even going to call your god a god anymore. Nah nah nah nah. It really has nothing to do with any absence of multiple god concepts being absent from the bible or the religion as a whole. Satan blatantly being one of them.
You are essentially claiming that because Satan has attributes that could be likened to God, that we must therefore conclude that Christianity is polytheistic.
In an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the definitional relativistic position are taking in this thread let me ask you a question:
Joe the Satanist worships the dark lord Satan and is awaiting the coming of the anti-Christ with great enthusiasm. Joe the Satanist readily acknowledges the godly existence of the Yahweh/Christ combo as depicted in the bible. Albeit as the divine and holy enemy of his own chosen despicable object of theistic worship.
Is Joe the Satanist a polytheist?
And why?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-14-2010 9:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2010 10:35 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 187 of 375 (565035)
06-14-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Pauline
06-13-2010 10:36 PM


Re: More, more and more of a confusion party
Frankly Dr Sing you have 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 this general concept of god because the specific Christian doctrine has declared itself to be monotheistic. That makes sense - not.
When objectively examining a culture or religion which concept of god would an anthropologist apply? The "general concept" or the Christian one?
And what does this "general concept" of god consist of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Pauline, posted 06-13-2010 10:36 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Pauline, posted 06-14-2010 6:11 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 375 (565042)
06-14-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Straggler
06-12-2010 12:53 AM


Re: Satan Exists!!
Biblical Christians believe in the existence of both Satan and Yahweh. The only reason they accept Loki (for example) as a god concept but deny the same status to Satan is because they believe Satan exists and the existence of two god concepts doesn't fit well with their monotheistic view of themselves.
No, that's not why. Satan is a fallen angel, not a god. Subbie's right: they don't form a definition of what counts as a god and then see what fits within it.
Believing in spiritual beings that are not called gods does not make them polytheistic even though other religons might consider those spiritual beings as gods.
Can anthropologists, arcaheologists and historians recognise forms of theism and god concepts without relying on the specific definitions and qualifications imposed by individual religions?
Not really because it all depends on how the religion views its spritiual beings.
You can't call an atheistic animist a polythiest just because you think its spiritual beings should be considered gods.
If an alien anthropologist studying the dead race of humanity in the far flung future investigated biblical Christianity they would conclude that it is a polytheistic religion that considered itself monotheistic.
I don't think so. Christians believe that there is only one God. All the other spiritual being don't count as gods. You, yourself, might think all those spiritual beings should count as gods, but that doesn't matter to the Christians and I think an anthropologist would recognize this.
From Message 175:
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?
Here, your word "gods" is not the same as what a Chirstian would call "God". You calling all spirtual beings as gods and not distinguishing between a God and other spiritual beings like the Christians and everyone else do.
You're changing the definition of the word "polythiestic" to include all the various spiritual beings as counting as a "god".
Are Satanists who worship Satan but believe in the existence of both Satan and Yahweh polytheists?
I would say obvioulsy so.
Using your own personal definition of polythiesm, sure. But using the real definition, its not so obvious. There's different types of Satanists out there... some think that Satan is the real God and Yahweh is not so they would be monotheistic. Some think that Satan is not God but worship him anyway. Some are atheists because they don't believe in any gods at all but "regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature." source
Only when you conflate all the distinctions between God, gods, and various other spiritual beings can you come up with these different beliefs as all being obviously polytheistic.
And I still think this is just a desperate attempt by you to label Christians as polythiests... probably for some trolling purposes.
From Message 178
Dr A writes:
Apparently, by virtue of being absolutely anyone in the whole world except you.
Apparently not. See below.
Percy writes:
There is no substantial difference between the minor gods of the ancient Greeks and Christian angels. In reality Christians believe in a host of supernatural beings, just like the ancient Greeks, and the fact that they prefer the label "angels" instead of "gods" is just a matter of nomenclature. Message 214
I actually agree with Percy... It is just a matter of nomenclature. Christianity's angels are a lot like the Greeks' gods but they don't consider them gods ergo they are not polytheistic.
You have to ignore the nomenclature and redefine polytheism in order for your argument to stand, but then you're really not saying anything at all anymore because almost all monothiests and any atheists who believed in spiritual beings would actually be polythiests. Its nonsensical. Like I said, you're either desperate or retarded.

From Message 185
Are those Christians who worship the virgin Mary as well as God polytheists?
I just want to make a side point here because people don't seem to understand what praying to Mary is all about... its not really "worship" in the sense that God is worshipped and you're not really praying to her as one prays to God.
Take a look at the Hail Mary:
quote:
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
It is asking for intercession from Mary... asking her to pray for us. Not worhiping her to get stuff like people do with God himself.
Not that I want to argue this point here, I just wanted to clear up some misunderstanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 06-12-2010 12:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 189 of 375 (565045)
06-14-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by New Cat's Eye
06-14-2010 1:12 PM


Re: Satan Exists!!
In an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the definitional relativism position people are taking in this thread let me ask you a question:
Joe the Satanist worships the dark lord Satan and is awaiting the coming of the anti-Christ with great enthusiasm. Joe the Satanist readily acknowledges the godly existence of the Yahweh/Christ combo as depicted in the bible. Albeit as the divine and holy enemy of his own chosen despicable object of theistic worship.
Is Joe the Satanist a polytheist?
And why?
Here, your word "gods" is not the same as what a Chirstian would call "God".
CS you are one who has made the argument that all known human cultures have believed in god(s). What concept of god were you referring to?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2010 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2010 1:30 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 191 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-14-2010 3:42 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 375 (565051)
06-14-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Straggler
06-14-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Satan Exists!!
In an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the definitional relativism position people are taking in this thread let me ask you a question:
Joe the Satanist worships the dark lord Satan and is awaiting the coming of the anti-Christ with great enthusiasm. Joe the Satanist readily acknowledges the godly existence of the Yahweh/Christ combo as depicted in the bible. Albeit as the divine and holy enemy of his own chosen despicable object of theistic worship.
Is Joe the Satanist a polytheist?
And why?
No, fuck your game. You always do that. You address what I've taken my time to explain to you and then I'll answer your questions.
CS you are one who has made the argument that all known human cultures have believed in god(s). What concept of god were you referring to?
Not one single concept...
The point is that almost all people seem to be able to come to believing in a god or some gods. I think they might be on to something...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 6:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 191 of 375 (565069)
06-14-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Straggler
06-14-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Satan Exists!!
depends if Joe thinks Satan is a God or not

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 6:04 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

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


Message 192 of 375 (565091)
06-14-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Artemis Entreri
06-14-2010 3:42 PM


Re: Satan Exists!!
AE writes:
depends if Joe thinks Satan is a God or not
Joe is essentially a theistic Satanist yes.
If I believe in the existence of cheese (non-supernatural dairy product eaten on toast, pizzas etc) and I personally choose to label cheese as "god" does that make me a cheese theist?
Or is there more to the concept of god than simply labelling things with that name?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-14-2010 3:42 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

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


Message 193 of 375 (565094)
06-14-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Straggler
06-14-2010 12:57 PM


Re: More, more and more of a confusion party
Straggler writes:
Frankly Dr Sing you have 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 this general concept of god because the specific Christian doctrine has declared itself to be monotheistic. That makes sense - not.
When objectively examining a culture or religion which concept of god would an anthropologist apply? The "general concept" or the Christian one?
And what does this "general concept" of god consist of?
I'm no anthropologist. So, I can't give you a professional answer. I can tell you what I would do though. When perusing a religion, I would apply the defintion of god that the particular religion in question has in its setup. I would not go around apply Greek mythology's god concept to Hinduism in order to identify whether or not Shiva or Saraswati qualify for god. I would look at the list of the bilions of gods in hinduism and think, ah...so these are what are "gods" in Hinduism. Next, I go on to Christianity and do the same. (Except we have onyl one person on the list).
If you are trying to amalgamate a general god concept by pick and choosing the most commonly recurring god attributes from different religions and say that there's no reason why satan doesn't fit your amalgamation---that strikesm e as inaccurate reasoning. Thats is not how things work in religion. As others have pointed out and as I have said right in the beginning--- in religion, people don't have a pre-made mould that their god fits into. It, rather, works the other way round. People subscribe to a religion and accept as god whoever that religion (or scripture) proclaims to be god. Be it 3 billion gods and godesses, as in hinduism....or 1 God, as in Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 12:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Straggler, posted 06-14-2010 6:56 PM Pauline has replied

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


Message 194 of 375 (565105)
06-14-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by New Cat's Eye
06-14-2010 1:30 PM


Satanic Reverses
CS writes:
No, fuck your game. You always do that. You address what I've taken my time to explain to you and then I'll answer your questions.
Calm down. I can see why you might be afraid that you'll end up saying something that makes you look stupid. Something like cheese theism or stating that gods and dogs are equally evidenced or that gravity gremlins are no more or less rational or scientific as an explanation for gravity than space-time curvature. But I can only demonstrate the silliness of your assumptions and the stupid conclusions that they lead to. I am not ultimately responsible for them. You are.
The point is that almost all people seem to be able to come to believing in a god or some gods.
Indeed. But what do we all mean by "gods" in this context and in what possible way besides Christian protestation and equivocation does the concept of Loki qualify whilst the concept of Satan doesn't?
CS writes:
I just want to make a side point here because people don't seem to understand what praying to Mary is all about... its not really "worship" in the sense that God is worshipped and you're not really praying to her as one prays to God.
Oh come now. If that isn't equivocation what the hell is? People pile to Lourdes in their millions because of supposed apparitions, statues, prayers, veneration of all kinds.......
How exactly is it not worship by anything other than name? I am sure our objective anthropologist would call it "worship". No?
CS writes:
You, yourself, might think all those spiritual beings should count as gods, but that doesn't matter to the Christians and I think an anthropologist would recognize this.
Understanding the internal distinctions by which the followers of individual religions convince themselves of the special nature of their gods or their forms of worship is not the same as adopting them.
Why the hell would an objective anthropologist studying all forms of human theism adopt the definitions or nomenclature of Christianity in particular?
Percy writes:
There is no substantial difference between the minor gods of the ancient Greeks and Christian angels. In reality Christians believe in a host of supernatural beings, just like the ancient Greeks, and the fact that they prefer the label "angels" instead of "gods" is just a matter of nomenclature. Message 214
I actually agree with Percy... It is just a matter of nomenclature.
If you agree with me that there is no conceptual difference between Christianity and Pagan forms of polytheism why the hell are you even arguing with me?
CS writes:
And I still think this is just a desperate attempt by you to label Christians as polythiests... probably for some trolling purposes.
CS writes:
Like I said, you're either desperate or retarded.
Charming. If you agree with Percy so much maybe you should look at his conclusions in a little more detail.
Percy writes:
How Christians choose to characterize their views has nothing to do with the reality of those views. That Christians believe in a panoply of supernatural beings that they give various designations to like God and Satan, angels and devils, is no different than the pagan belief in many gods, such as the ancient Greek belief in Zeus, Hera, Ares, Apollo, Aphrodite and all the rest. Message 152
Percy writes:
You believe in a host of supernatural beings who interfere in the affairs of men, just as the ancient Greeks believed. That you've chosen to worship only one of these supernatural beings is beside the point, and it's also the same as many ancient Greeks, who often chose to worship only one of the many gods. Message 166
Percy writes:
No, once again, I never said that Satan was (capital G) God. I said that Satan was one of the gods in whom Christians believe. I didn't say they worship Satan, though I suppose some do, only that they believed in him, meaning that they believe he exists, in the same way they believe God exists. It just so happens that Christians think so much of the god known as God that they worship him, as opposed to the god known as Satan who they fear. Message 178
Percy writes:
nyway, Christianity most certainly does have a panoply of gods: God, Gabriel, Michael, Satan, etc. This is just like many ancient religions. I've been using the example of the religion of ancient Greece which had its own panoply of gods: Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, etc. Message 186
So is Percy a retarded troll too? Or are you going to equivocate on that definition as well?
Now about Joe the Satanist.........?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2010 1:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2010 10:45 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 195 of 375 (565110)
06-14-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Pauline
06-14-2010 6:11 PM


Re: More, more and more of a confusion party
Dr Sing writes:
When perusing a religion, I would apply the defintion of god that the particular religion in question has in its setup.
So how would we determine whether a newly discovered culture believed in something we would call a "god"?
How have we managed to reconise and translate the word used by Egyptians, Romans, Babylonians, Greeks, Celts, Polynesians, African tribes etc. etc. etc. into the English word "god" if we are incapable of recogning such concepts without being explicitly told by the believers of each religion? What are the chracteristics of "god"?
I would not go around apply Greek mythology's god concept to Hinduism in order to identify whether or not Shiva or Saraswati qualify for god.
Nobody is applying one religions definition of god to another religion no matter how many times you stupidly assert this to be the case.
I am applying the same religion-independent concept of gods that we all apply when we say things like "all known human cultures have believed in gods". You called it the "general definition".
And I think it is safe to say we can all distinguish this generic and objective concept from pencils or indeed any other material writing implements.
More, more and more of a confusion party
Yes it is amazing how confused you still are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Pauline, posted 06-14-2010 6:11 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Pauline, posted 06-14-2010 10:20 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-15-2010 12:11 AM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024