Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Yeah, you do that. Then get back to me. I think your initial mistake may have involved not reading it. No, I said most people don't recognize Satan as a god. Christian or not. That may indeed be how Christianity got to be a monotheistic religion. What of it?

So do even your own atheist chums that assert what I do also look stupid to you? and what is that? Could you flesh this out please?

In each religion we can recognize a top tier of supernatural beings: the most powerful ones; the ones with greatest autonomy; the best ones; the ones thought most suitable for human worship. If we want to draw a boundary between these and other kinds of supernatural beings, then we generally find that some of them are definitely in the top tier and are classified under the same nominal clause, and then we look for the other beings customarily identified by the same noun.This noun we translate by the word "god".So, for example, the Virgin Mary, though quite near the top of the Catholic hierarchy, is not identified by the same noun (or a feminine form thereof) as Yahweh, who is definitely in the top tier. On the other hand, Loki, though not a good guy and not generally worshiped, is nonetheless identified by the same noun as entities which are definitely in the top tier such as Odin and Thor.

Sometimes the definition of a concept does in fact vary with its cultural context.Consider for example the concept of a "foul" in sport. How exactly would we produce an abstract definition of it?In most sports in would be a foul to grab a running opponent around the knees and bring him crashing to the ground. But this is not the case in rugby: and the way we express this is not to say that in rugby players are permitted to foul one another, rather we say that in rugby that is not a foul.This would still be true if the rules of rugby were written in Mayan: if the word describing this act was huatoptl it would be correct to translate it into English as "tackle" rather than "foul", because of the role that the act of huatoptl plays within the sport.And this sort of thing does not allow of a general definition that refers only to the act and not to the context (the sport). Consider for example the different rules relating to handling the ball in basketball, netball, soccer, rugby, and lacrosse. There is no general concept of an infraction without reference to what sport is being played.Rather, it is the rules of a particular sport that define the concept of an infraction relative to that sport, and indeed it is these rules that make it one particular sport rather than another. In the same way, it is the rules of a particular religion that decide what propositions are to be considered blasphemous and heretical within that religion, and it is these rules that make it one religion rather than another.

Are listening at all? That is irrelevant in this case since there are several books detailing what Satan is. These useless hypothetical scenarios are meaningless because they don't apply to the context of what is discussed. If alien anthropologist had a giant fucking book telling you what Satan is, then digging around in the dirt for figurines would be pointless, yes?You keep overlooking the 2-ton elephant in the room, while pointing to a fly on its ass. It's not desinged by Christians. The story of Satan predates Christianity, and "christians" didn't write the bible. Jews did. Why are 3 or 4 non-Christians telling you otherwise, unless it's because your reasoning is faulty? Look, I am certain there is good reason to assume that it once had polytheistic roots (note the past tense). But for several thousand years, Satan has been an angel and a devise of God (the only God). Really all you are doing is looking at supernatural attributes and saying, they resemble god-like attributes, so therefore satan must be a god. That's not how this works. You're talking out of your ass. To Joe, Satan is a god. To the rest of humanity, he's an angel, or just doesn't exist and never has. Claiming things doesn't make it so. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

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

That's my point, and a polythiest is someone who has adopted multiple gods. Since Christians do not adopt those other gods they are not polytheists. I read a lot of that thread...I don't totally agree with Percy, but he makes a lot of sense and has a well thought out and articulated position. Its complicated. Plus, I think Satan might be the one exception, but we can focus on the exception if you want. I maintain that believing in other spiritual beings like angels does not make one a polytheist even though you might like defining them as gods.Now, with Satan, it does seem that some christians' beliefs could be considered polythiestic. In the sense that Satan could be considered a god in his own right, they would be believing in two gods. But I don't think that makes all of christianity polytheistic. You're right though, some christians could be considered polytheistic.

Dr Adequate previously writes:

quote:

---

For example it would be an objective criterion to require that a "god" should be an object of veneration and worship.

​

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.

---

That all seems very clear. "Pencils are the gods of pencil-worshipers" but Mary is not a god of Mary-worshipers. But oh wait. That is contradictory. So let's ask for clarification as Dr A would never be so stupid as to contradict himself now would he? I asked for clarification and that is your response? The fact that you are unable to explain yourself or admit the contradictory nature of your position is no reason to get shirty with me. This coming from the man who has stated that belief in the existence of appropriately labeled wooden pencils is a valid form of theism!Of course words derive meaning from their conceptual use. But if I ask a room full of people what their idea of a god (small g) is what do you think they would say? If I asked them to depict their idea of the god of evil what do you think they would come up with?A picture of a naughty writing implement? Titans are also commonly known as the elder gods. The Fates were three mythological goddesses link. Do you see how that works? When speaking about theism in general terms unconstrained by the specifics of any given individual religion we use the term god in relation to a class of concept that we can all recognise. A class of concept that Satan lies within. Why even deny this is the case? A number of discovered ancient cultures have been described as believing in gods on a lot less information than you are demanding. Fertility goddesses of the paleolithic and Neolithic periods being the obvious examples. Why are you so reluctant to ascribe the term god to my horned-lake-of-fire-dwelling-tormentor-of-the-wicked example? Is it because even you (who is advocating an extreme form of definitional relativism) is intellectually uncomfortable with the idea that belief in near identical concepts qualifies as theism or not based on nothing more than the purely arbitrary labels being applied? If you are simply saying that Christians believe themselves to be monotheists whilst simultaneously believing in a multiplicity of gods conceptually (i.e. in all but name) I can only agree.In fact that is my point here.

Hold on one cotton pickin minute!! In Message 158 you said: Do you see anything about "adopts"? It is about belief. Not worship. Not "adopting". Belief. Now you want to equivocate on your own definition? If you are saying Percy made my argument better than I am then I doubt that many will disagree.Christians believe themselves to be monotheists whilst simultaneously believing in, and in some cases even worshiping, a multiplicity of gods (in all but name). That is my point here. Nothing more. Not all. But some. Fine. We have reached a degree of agreement. I am happy to leave it there if you are.Hopefully it is clear to all that what I have been saying is not as ill founded or stupid as many here mockingly assumed it to be.

Whatever our individual beliefs here we all come from a Judeo-Christian dominated culture. Our language reflects this. And evidently our conceptual inconsistencies and biases reflect this. This is why all here can agree that Loki qualifies as god whilst apparently most here will vehemently oppose the idea that Satan could ever be described as such. Despite the conceptual contradictions this results in. Why is at least one Christian at least now partially agreeing with me?Why does Dr. Adequate (of all people!) find himself having to justify a contradictory position regarding pencil-theism?Maybe my position on this is not as silly or as ill conceived as it first seemed?I knew when I started this thread it would be contentious. Some of those who contended were expected. Some not. But it was my aim to see if I could carry the argument in the face of expected opposition.I think I have done that. And in doing so I hope that, whether you ultimately agree with me or not, I have demonstrated that the question is not as silly as you may have assumed it to be at face value.

Its not what you say, its all in how you say it. How do you think the replies would have differed if you had said that some christians could be called polytheistic if you consider satan to be a god?I still think this thread was a little trollish

Not Trollish, just British. It hard to tell and a very fine line, sort of like the difference between spiritual entities and gods, the line gets very blurred at times, I try to avoid them at all costs. I wasn’t paying attention in my original reply, and that is my fault, I should not have responded to Straggler in the 1st place, but I am on it now. Sorry to take place in a Brit debate, I’ll try an make sure it doesn’t happen again.

No. Not on this occasion at any rate. You postulated people who worshiped pencils as gods. Whereas Catholics do not worship Mary as a goddess. Therefore, the pencils would be the gods of your hypothetical pencil-worshipers, whereas Mary would not be the goddess of those whom you call "Mary-worshipers".Got that? Yes: I should have thought that my position was already sufficiently clear; and has nothing to do with whether or not you refer to "praying to, sanctifying, and venerating" things as "worshiping" them. That would depend on whether they're a roomful of your hypothetical pencil-worshipers.Alternatively, if they were a roomful of Christians and if you asked them if Satan was a god they'd say no.But wait, if I say that, that would be an argumentum ad populum. I have already retracted my statements about Greek mythology, since Modulous pointed out that I was wrong. If this was true we should not be having this discussion. We do not all recognize Satan as a god. For starters, because in all the religions in which such a being exists he is not a god, but a devil. See my remarks on sports, above, for a critique of this "conceptually (i.e. in all but name)". Is a rugby tackle a foul "conceptually (i.e. in all but name)"?

Good.

If I worship pencils am I a pencil-theist?
If I worship both Mary and God am I a polytheist? No I didn't. My first mention of pencils was this: Your take-up of the pencil-theism theme in the field of worship was this: You then progressed to this: Yet when I ask you about Mary worship you said that those who worshiped Mary are not treating Mary as a god. This is undeniably contradictory. I have indeed got that you are both contradicting your original arguments and now in denial about the fact of this. In any conceptual sense Satan is as much a god as is Loki. In terms of nomenclature alone I will agree with you that this is not the case.Christians believe themselves to be monotheists whilst simultaneously believing in a multiplicity of gods conceptually (i.e. in all but name). That is my point here.In what sense do you actually disagree with that?

That sounds like the title to a song........ I would have asked which Christians precisely?(But in the name of harmony lets not go there - unless you are up for a fight ) Your opinion on my intentions is as objectively irrelevant as is your distinction between those Christians that are polytheists and those that are not.