Is Christianity Polytheistic?

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.

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 disappearedHow 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? 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. 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.

Frankly Dr Sing you have summed up the contradictory nature of the Christian position on this better than I ever could: 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?

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? 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.

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?

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. 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? 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? 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? 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? Charming. If you agree with Percy so much maybe you should look at his conclusions in a little more detail. So is Percy a retarded troll too? Or are you going to equivocate on that definition as well?Now about Joe the Satanist.........?

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"? 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. Yes it is amazing how confused you still are.

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.

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.

What did you make of Wright's conclusions in the text I linked to?Something new?Or same old stuff regurgitated by him and/or mistranslated by me?

It is you that has consistently made the distinction between worship and belief in gods. Not I. And it is you that has ultimately applied this criterium inconsistetly with regard to the woship of Mary. And then finally: So there we have it. Worshiping pencils in any objective sense results in pencil theism"When I discuss theism objectively, I would say that pencils are the gods of pencil-worshipers".Yet worshiping Mary apparently doesn't count. Because that doesn't suit your argument.Are you going to equivocate any further? To be clear here - I will keep this shit up as long as you keep replying.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

All hail the great and mighty Dr Adequate! He who is so infallible that whatever he says, no matter how contradictory, can never ever be wrong. Praise be upon him.Anyway - Having yourself initially defined worship as the objective measure by which we can identify the godliness of a concept, regardless of religion specific nomenclature, you have now indisputably backtracked, contradicted and equivocated by suddenly declaring that Christianic Mary worship doesn't count.However having abandoned your only method of objectively identifying god concepts you now find yourself leaping from the Mary-worship frying pan into the "no possible method of identifying gods" fire. As we shall see. Wrong. I defined pencils to be gods (I also defined myself to be a god if you recall). And then I asked if simply applying that personal label subjectively qualified pencils as "gods" and my belief in their existence qualified me as a theist. Apparently it did. And I didn't see you objecting to the idea that "god" is simply a label devoid of any specific objective identifiable conceptual qualities at the time. In fact the idea that we are unable to objectively identify the concept of "god" has been the basis of your argument ever since. Which brings us to your sporting analogy. The quite evident difference being that without having the first clue about the rules of a specific game it is impossible to objectively identify a foul whilst conversely we know that we can objectively identify god concepts in other cultures because we have indisputably done so. Bearing in mind that when discussing theism in a non-religion-specific context the Fates, Titans, paleolithic representations of fertility and what-not are are commonly described as "gods" how would we determine whether a newly discovered culture believed in a concept we would call a "god"?And in what sense would the concept of Satan be excluded from this non-religion-specific objective use of the term "god"?You have repeatedly avoided answering this question. Your arguments in this thread (having now abandoned worship as a means of objectively identifying god concepts) result in it being impossible to objectively identify such concepts.But you have yet to face the rather inconvenient fact that we both know it has been done. Without anyone mistaking a pencil for a god at any point. 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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.