Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Hi, Straggler. Forgive me then for misinterpreting your not acknowledging it while making a counter-assertion as ignoring it. ----- I don't think they're doing what you think they're doing.
And, even if they are, what would this prove except that some Christians are polytheists?
It certainly wouldn’t prove that Christianity, itself, is polytheistic.----- I apologize: I wasn’t entirely clear.Worship is part of the belief: it need not actually be done, just believed that it could be done. Entities whose worship is believed by someone to be ineffective are not gods within that person's religion.----- She is a polytheist because she believes that Zeus or Athena could also be worshiped with the same or similar results as she expects from worshiping Apollo.Christians do not believe that Zeus or Athena or any other being could also be worshiped with the same results as we expect from worshiping our God: either because we don’t believe them to exist, or we don’t believe that they have the power to grant what is asked of them.Therein lies the difference.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Easy. Same way we always do. We observe and we ask. They would tell us. The paleolithic fertility symbols are representative of belief in mysterious forces that cause renewal of life and times of plenty. And can be "called on" to produce in times of scarcity. Even a first year anthropology student would recognize these as "god concepts" when based in a specific theology even though absent the personification (no big hairy white guy sitting on a cloud).But this isn't the point. The point is we cannot define some generic god concept against which to determine what is or is not a valid god concept. This is in the eye of the believer and can only be determined by context within the specific religious beliefs. Actually, you are imposing your own generic distillation of a "god concept." And you are trying, then, to apply that made up generic concept to specific belief systems where it is foreign; without context to the belief system itself. It all falls down. No. Not even close. Does changing your name to Elizabeth II make you the Queen? Does changing your name to Dianne make you my girlfriend? Good god I hope not.Frankly, Straggler, I do not believe you do exist even as Straggler. I think you are a figment of my computer's imagination. A very pleasant and humorous one to converse with to be sure but just a figment none the less. A belief system, a theism, that underpins the god concept.God concepts do not make the religion. The theism makes, often personifies, the god concept. And Straggler is not a silly name. It is used to describe an often silly person but that is part of the fun isn't it. "God" is just a word we use in discourse so that we have some frame of reference within a conversation. The word "god" is not a "god concept" in and of itself outside some theism from which its attributes arise. I'm not sure others have spoken properly. I'm not sure I am speaking properly but what the hey.You are not a god because you are not a "god concept" arising from a recognizable theistic foundation. The "godly conceptual criteria" you lack is due to the lack of a specific religion-dependent theism.Though the word "god" as used in generic conversation may put us close to being in the ball park a "god concept" gives us a specific set of attributes as defined by the founding theism. When christians use the word "god" most often they are referring to the abrahamic god concept as conceived in their creed not some generic concept that might include the hindu specific god concept Shiva. That's on the other side of the ball park. At other times they may use the word "god" in its generic conversational sense. Only the context can tell.OK, I lied about you being just a figment.So, no, there are no specific religion independent criteria by which godliness can be determined. God concepts are wholly and strictly specific-religion-dependent. You cannot have a "god concept" outside a specific theistic view be that theism christian, confuscianist, or some paleolithic hunter-gatherer giving praise and thanks to the spirit of the bison he just killed. Well only he can tell you what was in his mind at the time, but I see him using the conversational generic without reference to any god concept. His point, I believe, is that spirituality is innate in humans and that specific theisms with their attendant god concepts are cultural phenomena. How is what different from what? How is believing in a specific theism and its god concept different from not believing in that theism and god concept?You're not really asking that are you? Either I missed something or you just fell off your bar stool.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : All kinds of good reasons.

You are dialoging. God's don't do that. With them, it's a one-sided conversation Yeah, I get that, but then you go on to say that Satan must be a God without paying any attention to the gigantic tome which says he is distinguished as an angel -- a fallen angel, to be precise. Sure, if we had no scriptures talking about Satan, and anthropolgists or archeologists found some figurine of Satan, we might conclude he's a god based on such scanty information. But that kind of speculation is useless since we do know that Satan is an angel in all three of the major religions.I don't think you should glibly brush that aside as inconsequential. But Christians didn't write the entirety of the bible, and Christians didn't invent Satan. It could be argued that they extrapolated the Satan device to mean more than what was intended by Judaism. Satan could have been a God in some predating religion where he was absorbed in to the culture and then synthesized. Shit like that happens all the time in religion (I submit to you ALL the major holidays as evidence). But as it stands, I really don't see where you are coming from. It seems that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't know. It feels like I'm missing a huge part of the puzzle. You seem to have some grand, unifying thought that you're trying to express -- like you had this aha! moment, and you're desperately trying to explain it. Either I am still missing it or your grand thought isn't all that grand

---

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

Have I said anything different? But which Christians are polytheists? Those that believe in Satan? Those that worship Mary? Do biblical Christians consider the worship of Satan as harmless and ineffectual? And those Christians who consider Satanic worship as resulting in un-godly acts? Are they polytheists? Yet they worship (in all but nomenclature) Mary and saints and they fear that those who worship Satan can have a profound effect on their lives.In conceptual terms how is Satan not the Christian god of evil?

Then you are arguing with yourself and have no-one to blame but yourself for the perceived deficiencies in my argument. No.The key point of difference here is whether or not there is an objective non-specific-religion conceptual meaning to the word god. I contend that there is. I base this on three arguments.1) We all use, and conceptually understand, the use of the term god outside the confines of any specific religion. This is exemplified by Catholic Scientist’s use of the word god in the following quote:CS writes

quote:

---

The concept of god, in general, exists even without all the specifics that various cultures have ascribed to it. Message 59

---

How can this sentence even make conceptual sense if we are confined to the concepts of god imposed by individual religions? Yet (whether we agree with the sentiment expressed or not) we all know what he means conceptually.2) If the only way in which the term god can be recognised is in the context of a known religion how can we ever conclude that a newly discovered culture is theistic? They won’t use the English term god for their conceptual entities. Yet we still recognise them as believing in gods. How? This is impossible if there is no religion-independent conceptual use of the term available to us3) Despite having named myself God and despite the fact that everyone here does in fact accept that I exist it seems that we all agree that this does not constitute a form of theism. Thus contrary to the assertions of Slevesque and others earlier in this thread theism is not just the belief in that which the term god has been ascribed to. The term god is applied to those concepts that are recognisably godly in terms of attributes and criteria. Attributes and criteria that we can all, regardless of individual religious beliefs or lack thereof, agree that I do not possess. How can this be so if there is no objective religion-independent concept of god available to us?So far I have been called a troll, a retard and a lunatic for suggesting that there is an objective religion-independent application of the term god. It has also been pointed out to me numerous times, as if it is some sort of salient point, that many disagree with may analysis. But so far nobody has done anything other than actually assert that an objective use of the term god is unwarranted or impossible. If anyone wants to attempt this I would be delighted to hear from them.In fact those who disagree with me don’t even seem to agree with each other. Slevesque says that the term god is a label that can be applied to anything in order to result in theism. E.g. wooden pencils. Dr Adequate did agree with as long as pencils were worshiped but has reneged on this and now thinks that god is a concept regardless of worship but cannot explain how this can be applied to pencils but not applied to me. Meanwhile Subbie says that religions get to define their own gods but is barely audible through his foaming mouth as he tries to reconcile this with his assertion that Christians cannot define the trinity as one god. Bluejay says god is a concept and not a label and that we can objectively discern gods through worship. But he says that Mary worship doesn’t count because it isn’t really worship. Dr Adequate disagrees. He thinks Christians do indeed worship Mary. But not as a god. CS agrees with Bluejay that Mary worship isn’t really worship but he says that some Christians belief in Satan does constitute a form of polytheism despite them not actually worshiping Satan. Bluejay disagrees with CS because Christians are not actually worshiping Satan and worship is his only criteria. Meanwhile Dr Sing and CS have provided some recognisable attributes for god concepts which fail to preclude Satan. Prodigy has provided some criteria that require all forms of theism prior to the advent of the Abrahamic religions to be atheistic. Dr Adeqaute has talked himself into the indefensible position of considering the exclusive belief in malevolent gods as a form of terminological atheism.I could go on.But the long and the short of it is that everyone has concluded that I am obviously wrong for a variety of different and contradictory reasons.Perhaps once you sort out amongst yourselves what the problem with my position is you could let me know?

And why does that particular tome hold sway over those looking at human theism as a conceptual whole rather than purely through Christian self imposed and self serving definitions? Essentially acts of terminological self-justification.Why would anyone who is not a Christian look at Christian beliefs through anything other than the objective eyes of one who sees Christianity as a religion which believes itself to be monotheistic whilst actually being conceptually polytheistic in all but name? Well I don't think you should glibly brush aside that you, me and everyone else uses the term "god" in a way that is religiously independent. What concept of god was CS talking about in that quote? The Christian god? Or a religion-independent concept of "god"?Be specific.

Agreed. Anything I think you said will be taken as what I think you said though it may in fact differ from what you may or may not have actually said or that you may or may not have intended to be said. I think. I think CS was referring to the generic "concept" of a conversational label "god" not in fact to a "god concept" which is strictly defined by a theistic-dependent creed. The "god" label does exist, in general, which is why it must be further specified and refined to a "god concept" before it has any meaning within any specific religion. They may not even have a word that translates to our generic conversational "god" but they will have a "god concept" ultra specific to their belief system. This can only be discerned by how their god concept interacts with their lives, society, morality, rituals, laws etc. and where, how, why it stems from their foundational theology. And no it is not impossible to identify even if our generic "god" label may not be broad enough at that time to encompass their god concept. That's what anthropologists are supposed to do. Confusion of the "god" label with a "god concept."The generic definition of the "god" label is sufficiently robust to deny your godhood. But that does not translate into its use as a generic "god concept" to shoehorn into the analysis of a specific religion.Again, the former can be generically defined and is useful for conversational purposes and generally covers such god concepts as YWYH, Zeus, Shaivas Durga, Tom Landry, but may need to be streched beyond recognition in discussing Gaia or Tao or that stone-aged caveman (sorry GEICO) who venerates the spirit of his newly killed dinner. There may be other god concepts out there that our label is totally inadequate to address. Again, see anthropologist.The latter is specific and religion-dependent. Though holding in one's mind the "concept" of a "god" label may be helpful from an experiential point, a "god concept" can only be identified as it relates to the specifics of the foundational theism. This can only be done by observing their lives, rituals, learning and assessing their foundational theism.This is why you cannot take any generic "god" label and force it upon a specific belief like christianity to turn it from mono- to poly- theistic. The christian "god concept," like all god concepts, is specific to the foundational creed. It may be included within but is not dependent upon the broader "god" label.Specific to christianity, while your generalized "god" label may seem to you from the outside to apply to Satan, Mary, Arnold, etc., inside the theology, prayer to/through notwithstanding, these are but functionaries and intercessors to the single god concept Yahweh. Whatever your generic label may tell you, the foundational theology denies all but the one "god concept." And yes they can even define their single god concept as a trinity. Logically stupid and laughable but there you go, that's religion. Let me add my own assertions to your mountain of troubles:A generic objective "god concept" cannot by definition exist. And any generic "god" label is by definition too general to substitute as a "god concept" in analyzing any theology.Specific to the OP, then. Christianity is monotheistic since their foundational creed results in a single "god concept." The broader generic "god" label cannot substitute for a "god concept" in analyzing a religion, therefore its forced application to christianity fails.I am delighted to have helped you reach the goal of your quest.You're welcome. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

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.

So I could be the creator of the universe whose omnipresent conscious will is responsible for the continuation of the natural laws under which the universe runs and yet I would only qualify as a god if some theist decided to believe in my existence and create a form of theism in my name? So you assert. But why not exactly? Which particular religion's definition of the term "god" (lower g) will we find in a dictionary? For example. So you continually assert. But is this true? Is the Immaterial Pink Unicorn who created the universe and through whom all morality is measured recognisably a "god"? Which specific religion is this god concept attached to? Do I really need to sit here and make-up a whole host of other god concepts that are lacking associated religions to make my point here? What specific theology? How did you recognise it as a theology unless there was some criteria by which you recognised their belief in a concept we would call "god"? Not all god concepts are attached to a belief system though are they? The fact we can invent gods that no-one believes in is testament to that fact. Can bog standard wooden pencils ever qualify as gods? I am going to right a story about Wagwah the god responsible for otherwise inexplicable blue screens of death and PC crashes. You do not want to displease Wagwah. The consequences for your PC will not be pleasant. Is Wagwah a god? Which religion is he attached to? "Conversational generic"? How exactly is that different to the non-religion dependent conceptual use I was talking about? How is defining "god" to maintain ones claims to monotheism any different to defining "good" to maintain the idea that a genocidal despot is incapable of evil? You are going to have to demonstrate your assertion that recognisable god concepts are impossible without an associated form of theism to attach themesleves to before we reach that happy place. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What is "life". Can you define "life"? Is it possible to objectively recognise that which is alive in all but the most borderline of cases? Do you need to be able to define life in order to objectively recognise that a caterpillar is a form of life? Or that a rock is not?Can you define "game"? I don't need to define "game" to see that if I invent a past-time that involves moving pieces on a board following a set of rules such that two competing participants can vie to win is a "game".Do we need to definitively define "god" in order to all agree that I don't qualify as a god but that Zeus does? What criteria are we applying to recognise something as a god and is it possible to do this without recourse to any particular religion? As an atheist do you have a conceptual idea of that which you do not believe to exist that is independent of any particular religion?Is the malevolent Immaterial Pink Unicorn who created the universe and through whom all morality is measured recognisably a "god"? If so - How?Which specific religion is this IPU god concept attached to? Who believes or worships this god? Do these things matter in terms of recogning that it is indeed a concept of god? Does the malevolence of this god disqualify it from godliness?I say no. I say that conceptually this is blatantly recognisable as a god. Because it is the concept not the belief or the worship or the malevolence that ultimately counts. Do you disagree? The only thing you all agree on is that I must obviously be wrong. If you think you all agree as to why - the misunderstanding is yours.Now why don't you go back to Message 230 and try and justify your own flip-flopping position?Including the indefensible position that the high priestess of the qaghruna, who believes exclusively in and worships only the malevolent gods under discussion, is an atheist. Depite the fact that her whole life is dedicated to maintaining the temples of, praying to, and undertaking ritual human sacrifices in the name of these malevolent gods in order to appease them.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well considering you avoid the points most of us make and instead resort to semantics to prove your point is why your having so much trouble understanding the discussion. We might as well be talking to a brick wall.Like the point I made about the differences between worhip (adoration) and veneration. or the point we made about naming yourself President or Queen, or trying to compare an atheistic and theistic definition/concept of god with circular reasoning. Your position is also based on a number of fallacy concepts; argument from, bare assertion, conjunction, denying the correlative, necessity, false dichotomy, homunculus argument, nirvana, and package deal. You have so many logical holes in your argument it is hard to even address them in one post without taking up entire page.Perhaps we need to attack these fallacies one by one and we can make some progress. If you understood these most basic concepts this discussion could make some progress instead of you just repeating yourself ad nauseum ignoring the logical explainations you've been given.

---

If no one knows you and believes in you then the question never arises, does it. By definition.Semantics. A "god concept" is not a lower g but a capital G.A "god concept", by definition, is a set of specific attributes arising from the foundation of a specific theology. YHWH is a "god concept." It is not Shiva. It is not Prometheus. It is YHWH. "God concepts" achieve their specific attributes from the specific theology.A lower case g "god" is a generic label for a class of ideas. A lower case g "god" can be YHWH or Shiva or Her Magnificent Invisible Pinkness. It can also be applied to Gaia (where the "god concept" is the Universe in toto), or to Tao (where the "god concept" is life in harmony with the Universe) or to the caveman's conceptions of spirits. In general the lower g "god" description includes (but is not limited to) a supernatural being with physics-law defying powers presiding over some portion of the physical world.A generic (one size fits all) capital-G "god concept" cannot exist. By definition it is not generic but specific.You attempt to take the lower case g "god" label (specifically the "supernatural being with physics-law defying powers presiding over some portion of the physical world" part) and, I assert, inappropriately use that generic definition as the defining "god concept" to the specific theology of christianity. Using this generic lower-case g description you assert that Satan, Gabby the Archangel, and further, all intercessors and functionaries of the religion are capital G "god concepts" in christianity. They are not. They may appear to qualify as small g "god" beings OUTSIDE the theology, but they are not capital G "god concepts" within the theology.You may continue to assert that christianity is polytheistic based upon the lower-case g definition. But I assert this is a semantical aberration that fails in its application to the theology.Edited by AZPaul3, : mechanics correction.Edited by AZPaul3, : Reword. Didn't like the way I said something that, now, y'all will never see.

Hi, Straggler. You would have to say something different in order to prove the titular point of this thread: i.e., that Christianity is polytheistic.----- Basically, yes. Biblical Christians generally view Satan as being temporarily allowed to exercise some powers in order to further God’s plan. But, ultimately, Satan is powerless. He is what Christians would consider a false god: a being that seems like a god, but really isn’t.----- You still haven’t shown this to be the case. I say that their actions towards Mary and the saints are not worship, because they are not asking for the power of these beings on their behalf, but only for their advocacy to the power of God.You can’t keep saying this without some sort of support as long as I’m making a counter-argument to it. This is what I accused you of ignoring. Twice now.I’ve been hoping some other Christians would weigh in on this point, because I could very well be wrong about this.----- Is he worshiped within Christianity?
Do Christians believe that worship of Satan is equivalent to worship of God?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Throughout this thread I have tried to use the term "biblical Christians". If one believes only in the Christian God but considers Satan to be simply a metaphor for man's innate capability for evil and all other such biblical entities in a similar metaphorical light - Then one is indisputably monotheistic. If one believes in the actual existence of Satan and the host of other such biblical supernatural entities then (as I am arguing here) they are better obectively described as conceptual polytheists who have convinced themselves that they are monotheists by means of some definitional dynamics and terminological trickery. Then why do Christian fear Satan? Satanic Possession. Tempting people away from God and into eternal damnation. The rising of the anti-Christ and ultimately the end of the world in the form of Armeggadon and judgement where ones eternal fate hangs in the balance. Nothing to significantly interrupt the mundanity of ones daily routine there then!!I fail to see how how the multitude of Christians who believe this sort of nonsense can be meaningfully cited as considering Satan "ineffectual"? Or as being monotheists. Even by your own definitions. And as CS has agreed. Apparently Percy has explained this better than I so I suggest you follow the links in this post Message 194Having looked at Percy's posts do you disagree with CS on this? If they have no supernatural power in and of themselves (even if that power is simply supernatural persuasiveness of the CEO of supernature himself i.e. God) why not just pray directly to God?Why erect statues, venerate and sanctify those places where apparitions of Mary have been seen? Why flock in millions to these places to be healed? If she is "ineffectual"? Why does he need to be? Was Loki worshipped? Is he a god? If Christians believe in the existence of Satan and his power to corrupt, destroy, possess and lead astray ultimately resulting in eternal damnation - Is that not enough? Do those who dedicated their lives to the worshipof Zeus believe that worship of Apollo is equivalent to their own worship? Are they monotheists simply for considering Zeus superior?Dave believes in the existence of the ancient Greek pantheon of gods. But he is a particular fan of Zeus. Dave thinks it is unfair that Zeus, being so obviously superior and top tier as compared to the other Greek gods, is lumped in with Apollo, Aphrodite etc. etc. in terminological terms. Dave decides to rectify this situation. Dave decides that he will from now on refer to all those members of the Greek pantheon as guds except Zeus. Zeus remains a god. In fact as far as Dave is concerned Zeus is the only god. The rest are guds.Can Dave now legitimately call himself a monotheist?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Did the ancient greeks believe in a pantheon of gods? Or a pantheon of Gods? Likewise Hindus, Romans, Norse etc.Likewise - Conceptually the bible contains a limited pantheon of gods. That is my argument here. What if there is no theology? You have abjectly failed to explain how we can create recognisable god concepts if godliness is ultimately based on theological belief rather than conceptual criteria. As you are simply asserting.Is the Immaterial Pink Unicorn who created the universe and through whom all morality measured recognisably a concept of a "god"? Could someone believe in the existence of this conceptual entity and legitimately call themselves an atheist?Yet there is no theism attached to this (lower g) concept. Thus your main point is refuted.Likewise - There are a pantheon ofsupernatural beings in the bible who are recognisably conceptually godly but whom are denied this status simply by nomenclature. Nomenclature designed to upold Christians own belief that they are monotheists. So how does this preclude Satan being a "god"?And if you want to say that there is a blurry distinction between gods and spirits - I will agree. But so what? There is a blurry distinction between life and non-life. But nobody suggests that this means we should simply abandon all attempts to objecively recognise life and instead accept that it means whatever anybody needs it to mean to uphold their individual beliefs.How is defining "god" to maintain ones claims to monotheism any different to defining "good" to maintain the idea that a genocidal despot is incapable of evil?