Is Christianity Polytheistic?

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.

No. You are not providing me with enough information to answer the question. 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? Except that most people don't recognize Satan as a god. Which is why I want to hear how you're defining "god". 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.

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?

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.

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)"?

That depends on whether you think they're gods. You are making a distinction between people who think pencils are gods and people who worship pencils as gods? Is not acclaiming something a god de facto a form of worship?I was simply using the word "pencil-worshipers" to refer to the hypothetical people whom you now wish to call pencil-theists. At the time you did not protest: "Oh, no, I never said they worshiped pencils as gods, I just said they thought they were gods". But now that you're desperately searching for anything at all you can pretend that I'm wrong about, suddenly the distinction becomes crucial.But in fact, it's immaterial. You admit that you said the "pencil-theists" thought that pencils were gods. I based my assessment of their beliefs on this. And how very wrong you are.The basis of your confusion seems to be this.You described a group of people who think pencils are gods, and I coined the term "pencil worshipers" for them.It does not follow from this that if you coin the term "Mary worshipers" for Catholics, I am obliged to say that Catholics think Mary is a god. "In any conceptual sense grabbing someone round the legs in rugby is as much a foul as it is in football." I don't think that your mantra of "conceptually (i.e. in all but name)" is meaningful in this context.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But not between believing that X is a god and worshiping X as a god. No, because you explicitly said that these people thought that pencils were gods. Whereas Catholics do not think that Mary is a god. Where "it" is apparently a gross non sequitur. Since my equivocation exists in your imagination rather than my posts, that would be up to you. And short of a signed confession that you're wrong, I can think of no clearer admission of failure.

No. I gave it as an example of something that would be an objective criterion for distinguishing Satan from God. If you want to know how I would do it, you should read my post on that subject. Worship is involved, but as you will see from my post it is neither necessary nor sufficient. I don't quite see what you're trying to pretend that I'm wrong about. Are you trying to draw some subtle distinction between people who define pencils to be gods and people who think that pencils are gods?Well, whatever you claim you meant, I was talking about what I thought you meant, not whatever it is you are now failing to explain that you actually meant. Conflating the former with the latter tells you nothing about the consistency or even the content of my argument. If you really have no idea what my argument is, I would suggest that reading my posts would give you a better idea of this than making up what you so candidly describe as "this shit". And yet we would be unable to do so "without having the first clue about" the beliefs of a specific culture.If I ask you "Is Plalosc a god of the Tustipotli people?" then you would in fact need further information. "Without the first clue", it might be their favorite food. This is, of course, not true. I have set out my method of identifying gods in a post which so far you have not even deigned to answer.Now let's hear yours. So far as I can see, all you've provided is a repeated assertion that "we" can do so --- despite the fact that we do not actually agree on which entities should be considered gods.

Perhaps you could directly answer my question, which I shall repeat: If the title of the book is meant to constrain me only to mention those entities that would properly be classed as gods of the Yagwuna^* then I should of course confine myself to the vespuna. I should also find myself unable to mention trees, fish, human beings (including the Yagwuna tribe themselves), and those little packets of tomato ketchup that you get in restaurants.But in that case I should write a book with a different title, since I should want to mention some other entities, such as the Yagwuna themselves; and, indeed, the quaghruna, who, as the chief enemies of the vespuna, should certainly merit a mention in any book about the vespuna. Just as I would wish to mention the Germans in a book entitled "The Allies In World War II". * Note the correct grammatical usage.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet it escaped me: so I was talking about what I thought you meant rather than what you now claim you meant.You could have avoided this by clarifying your meaning when first I referred to them as pencil-worshipers. I am. No, because I don't think you're a god. This is, of course, not true. Post #198. Y'know, the one titled "God-Spotting".Now, your turn. Please explain how you identify gods.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If they believe in qaghruna but no other supernatural entities, then they believe in demons but not gods. They would be superstitious but not theistic, just like someone who, for example, didn't believe in God but believed in ghosts. That's nearly an answer.Would you translate qaghruna as "demons" or "gods"? A book which only mentioned the gods of the Yagwuna would not mention the demons of the Yagwuna. Just as a book that only mentioned fish would not mention whales.The category "god" excludes the category "demon". One can't be both.

No, only if you think that pencils actually are gods. Well yes. 'Cos then you'd just believe in demons.There's a difference between a theist and a superstitious atheist. Because their separate, completely different name for and classification of the bad entities would be better translated as "demons". They might well think so. Christians, on the other hand, would count him as a god.---See my post on "God-Spotting" for further clarification.

What is it? You would find our arguments much more mutually consistent if you could manage to misunderstand us all in the same way instead of misunderstanding us all in different ways.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Any set of chemicals that, given the right environment, can catalyze their own synthesis through surface catalysis.You may disagree with that, but at least I've given a definition.I've also explained how I'd identify gods. And you might like to think about that. My position is not in fact stated in Message 230. That position may be indefensible, but it isn't mine. I'm over here. Put down the wooden sword and walk away from the straw man.