|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If I worship pencils am I a pencil-theist? That depends on whether you think they're gods.
No I didn't. My first mention of pencils was this: 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.
I have indeed got that you are both contradicting your original arguments and now in denial about the fact of 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 Satan is as much a god as is Loki. "In any conceptual sense grabbing someone round the legs in rugby is as much a foul as it is in football."
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
DA writes: You are making a distinction between people who think pencils are gods and people who worship pencils as gods? 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.
Straggler writes: Yes - Each religion will impose it's own qualifications and subtleties. But so what? Satan is a god in every way that is used to define gods in every objective use of the term. Not necessarily. For example it would be an objective criterion to require that a "god" should be an object of veneration and worship. Straggler writes: Satan is the "object of veneration and worship". Yes, but not by Christians. Satanists can't introduce Satan into the Christian pantheon by worshiping him any more than you can introduce pencils into the Christian pantheon by worshiping them. Straggler writes: If Christians will objectively and religion-independently consider Loki (for example) as a god concept why won't they (with the same objective hat on) accept Satan as a god concept? And they would accept pencils as the god-concept of pencil-worshipers. But that doesn't make Christians polytheistic, even though Christians believe in the existence of pencils. DA writes: 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. And then finally:
Straggler writes: Are those Christians who worship Mary mother of God polytheists? No. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It is you that has consistently made the distinction between worship and belief in gods. But not between believing that X is a god and worshiping X as a god.
"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. No, because you explicitly said that these people thought that pencils were gods. Whereas Catholics do not think that Mary is a god.
So there we have it. Where "it" is apparently a gross non sequitur.
Are you going to equivocate any further? Since my equivocation exists in your imagination rather than my posts, that would be up to you.
To be clear here - I will keep this shit up as long as you keep replying. And short of a signed confession that you're wrong, I can think of no clearer admission of failure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
DA writes: No, because you explicitly said that these people thought that pencils were gods. Whereas Catholics do not think that Mary is a god. 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.
DA writes: Consider for example the concept of a "foul" in sport. How exactly would we produce an abstract definition of it? 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.
Straggler writes: 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? I don't think that your mantra of "conceptually (i.e. in all but name)" is meaningful in this context. 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.
DA writes: 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
dr Sing writes: BTW, since a few of you are self-proclaiming deity of yourselves (or given a chance would)...do you fit the minimum expectations of god? I have changed my name to God. Assuming that you accept that I exist how many Gods do you now believe exist? If I don't qualify - Why not?
Straggler writes: 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. Dr Sing writes: and what is that? Could you flesh this out please? That has been my question to you throughout this thread. What do you mean by the "general definition" as used by Slevesque in the examples below?
Slevesque writes: Although I disagree on one point. I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionnary theory. The belief in a particular God/Gods is of course acquired knowledge though. Message 75 Slevesque writes: Well the main point is just the title: Children are born believers in God academic claimsMessage 92 Slevesque writes: What I have claimed is at the very least probable, since why then would every culture around the world have the concept of God/Gods ?Message 84 And using this "general definition" - Essentially a specific-religion-independent concept of god - tell me why Satan doesn't qualify? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Dr A on the Yagwai tribe writes: 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? The question is, should we translate as follows: vespuna = godsqaghruna = gods Or should we translate: vespuna = godsqaghruna = demons You ducked the question. It was not rhetorical. How would you translate the two terms? Would you really translate them both by the word "gods"? If I were writing a book titled The Gods of The Yagwai Tribe I would consider it very incomplete without covering all of the above. Which would you leave out? This is not a rhetorical question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Interesting - I've heard of the Jahwist/Elohist conflict and the efforts of the Redacter to harmonise them (and it would have worked too if it wasn't for them meddling Victorian scholars) but this specific instance is interesting because of the Dead Sea scrolls edition showing the change quite starkly.
Which reminded me of the start of Job (Job 1:6-7):
quote: That's from HNV in case you were wondering about why Hasatan and the eretz are preserved that way. The 'sons of God' even makes it into KJV. It has long been thought that 'sons of God' meant 'angels' - but maybe this was from a time that Yahweh had ascended to the top of the pantheon and the lesser gods (is Satan included in this or is he contrasted?) convene for a meeting. I've seen Robert Wright give a talk or two (via video not using live photon reflection into aqueous lens technology) on game theory I think it was - have you seen any of them yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Anyway - Having yourself initially defined worship as the objective measure by which we can identify the godliness of a concept ... 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.
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. 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.
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. 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".
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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If I were writing a book titled The Gods of The Yagwai Tribe I would consider it very incomplete without covering all of the above. Perhaps you could directly answer my question, which I shall repeat:
The question is, should we translate as follows: vespuna = godsqaghruna = gods Or should we translate: vespuna = godsqaghruna = demons You ducked the question. It was not rhetorical. How would you translate the two terms? Would you really translate them both by the word "gods"? Which would you leave out? This is not a rhetorical question. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are you trying to draw some subtle distinction between people who define pencils to be gods and people who think that pencils are gods? It is hardly a subtle distinction. I would say it was a quite obvious distinction. Are you not making any distinction at all between ascribing the word "god" to something and the term "god" being imbued with some conceptual criteria? Let's see: I have changed my name to God. I assume that you believe that I exist. So now you believe that God exists. Which makes you a theist. No? If not why not?
I have set out my method of identifying gods in a post which so far you have not even deigned to answer. No you have not! You have evaded it at every turn. And continue to do so. Where exactly have you set out this method? Can you quote it or at least link to the specific post where you cite this method? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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 members of the Yagwai tribe who only believe in the existence of evil gods (oh sorry I meant qaghruna) are atheists as far as you are concerned? This is not a rhetorical question.
You ducked the question. It was not rhetorical. How would you translate the two terms? Would you really translate them both by the word "gods"? Inside my book titled "The Gods of the Yagwai Tribe" I would of course make clear their internal distinctions between different kinds of gods. I would make it clear that the evil god concepts that the Yagwai call qaghruna are in some sense comparable to the Christian specific notion of devils or demons with which we in the Western world are all familiar.
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. You are joking? A book titled "Gods of the Yagwai Tribe" omits all the evil gods they believe in because you want to make a nominal distinction between good gods and evil gods? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It has long been thought that 'sons of God' meant 'angels' - but maybe this was from a time that Yahweh had ascended to the top of the pantheon and the lesser gods (is Satan included in this or is he contrasted?) convene for a meeting. It seems a bit unclear. Luke 4-5-7 seems to be cited as some sort of evidence by those who suggest that the answer to your question is 'yes'. But I don't see how (but maybe I am not looking at a translation that makes it clear) There are lots of sort of allusions to the idea from various sources - none of which seem very authoritative.
Link quote: I've seen Robert Wright give a talk or two (via video not using live photon reflection into aqueous lens technology) on game theory I think it was - have you seen any of them yourself? No I haven't. So cheers for the link. I read 'The Moral Animal' years ago and found the way in which he related all the evo-psych theories he was advocating directly to Darwin's biography a bit forced and convuluted. But he talks about game theory a lot in that and it was interesting. I haven't read Nonzero which is his book specifically about game theory and which I am guessing is the period and subject mater your lecture links will relate to. Will check them out properly at some point soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is hardly a subtle distinction. I would say it was a quite obvious distinction. 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.
Are you not making any distinction at all between ascribing the word "god" to something and the term "god" being imbued with some conceptual criteria? I am.
Let's see: I have changed my name to God. I assume that you believe that I exist. So now you believe that God exists. Which makes you a theist. No? If not why not? No, because I don't think you're a god.
No you have not! You have evaded it at every turn. And continue to do so. This is, of course, not true.
Where exactly have you set out this method? Can you quote it or at least link to the specific post where you cite this method? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So members of the Yagwai tribe who only believe in the existence of evil gods (oh sorry I meant qaghruna) are atheists as far as you are concerned? This is not a rhetorical question. 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.
Inside my book titled "The Gods of the Yagwai Tribe" I would of course make clear their internal distinctions between different kinds of gods. I would make it clear that the evil god concepts that the Yagwai call qaghruna are in some sense comparable to the Christian specific notion of devils or demons with which we in the Western world are all familiar. That's nearly an answer. Would you translate qaghruna as "demons" or "gods"?
You are joking? A book titled "Gods of the Yagwai Tribe" omits all the evil gods they believe in because you want to make a nominal distinction between good gods and evil 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024