Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 271 of 375 (568411)
07-05-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Practical Prodigy
07-04-2010 6:53 AM


Re: No, You're Not God
PP writes:
Straggler writes:
Firstly you still haven't explained to me how it is that regardless of naming myself God belief in my existence does not constitute a form of theism.
This is true regardless of whether one is Christian, Hindu, Muslim, agnostic, atheist or anything else.
Why is that? What am I lacking?
Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence mainly should I go on?
Rather than simply ranting about how right you are maybe you could try re-considering the criteria by which godliness can be determined? This time I suggest that you try and do so without eliminating the vast majority of human theistic belief in the process.
We all agree that I am not a god. But why exactly is this?
I say I lack the conceptual criteria to be described as such. Others here disagree. Others say that there are no such criteria. Others cite worship, or being attached to a form of theism, or being benevolent etc. etc.
What do you say?
What conceptual criteria do recognisable god concepts such as Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu, Kali etc. etc. etc. possess that I do not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-04-2010 6:53 AM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 3:12 AM Straggler has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 272 of 375 (568417)
07-05-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
07-05-2010 4:53 PM


Re: "Ineffectual" Worship
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
If one believes in the actual existence of Satan and the host of other such biblical supernatural entities then... they are better objectively described as conceptual polytheists...
But, why do you think this? Isn’t it because you believe the word god to have a certain connotation that monotheists do not believe it to have?
-----
Straggler writes:
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.
According to Christianity, one’s eternal fate doesn’t really hang in the balance unless one gives in to the temptations. Within Christian theology, man always has power over Satan, unless he chooses to give it up. Not so with God.
-----
Straggler writes:
If they have no supernatural power in and of themselves (even if that power is simply supernatural persuasiveness of the supposed CEO of supernature i.e. God) why not just pray directly to God?
How is asking a saint to plead with God on my behalf any different from asking my living relatives and friends to pray on my behalf?
Besides, if someone else asking for God’s help makes them into gods, why doesn’t my asking for God’s help myself make me into a god?
-----
Straggler writes:
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"?
Mary is a sign. They think they will be healed because God gave them the sign of Mary, not because Mary is working a miracle.
-----
Straggler writes:
Was Loki worshipped? Is he a god?
The nature of Loki is actually a strongly-debated topic. I can’t answer either of those questions.
Loki doesn’t actually belong to either of the two tribes of Norse gods (Aesir or Vanir), so historians don’t know that the ancient Norse actually thought of him as a god.
-----
Straggler writes:
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?
Why should it be? Do other religions regard this as sufficient criteria to call something a god? If so, which religions?
-----
Straggler writes:
Do those who dedicated their lives to the worship of Zeus believe that worship of Apollo is equivalent to their own worship?
I think I’ve worded this part poorly.
If one needed help of a certain kind, he could go to a certain god. If one needed help of another kind, he could go to another god. One god helps you hunt; one helps your crops grow; one protects you from floods; etc. The theology is partitioned into jurisdictions, within which a different God’s power holds sway and must be entreated for deliverance or assistance.
Not so in Christianity: there is one God, and all situations call for appeals to the same God.
-----
Straggler writes:
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?
I don’t know how to answer this question, because neither an answer of yes or no will strictly agree with the position I’ve been arguing for.
Have you read my argument? What made you decide that a point about subjectively changing nomenclature was an appropriate way to deal with my arguments?
I defined the criteria that I have always understood everybody to use when identifying something as a god. I don’t know of any exceptions to my criteria. If there are exceptions, please point them out to me.
Given the broad spectrum of religious beliefs that exist or have existed throughout history, I won’t be too surprised if you can find one with criteria for godhood that conflict with mine. But, if you do, you’ll have to show that that religious belief is the norm, and the Christian is the outlier, rather than the other way around.
-----
On a side note, I consider Mormonism to be polytheistic. We are non-Trinitarians, and, as such, Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost have different roles in our salvation, thus making them technically three different deities. Moreover, we hold that humans can become gods. Thus, we’re more accurately thought of as henotheistic, rather than monotheistic, anyway.
Of course, most Mormons will ague vehemently that we are true monotheists (nobody every agrees with me about anything relating to my religion).

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 4:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 7:56 PM Blue Jay has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 273 of 375 (568420)
07-05-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Straggler
07-04-2010 1:08 AM


Re: No, You're Not God
What is "life".
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.
The only thing you all agree on is that I must obviously be wrong.
And you might like to think about that.
Now why don't you go back to Message 230 and try and justify your own flip-flopping position?
My position is not in fact stated in Message 230.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2010 1:08 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 274 of 375 (568422)
07-05-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Blue Jay
07-05-2010 6:54 PM


Re: "Ineffectual" Worship
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.
But, why do you think this?
Because I am arguing that "god" has conceptual meaning that is religion-independent. Conceptual meaning that is not dependent on worship or theism or belief or benevolence or indeed any of the other things being cited here by others. See Message 260
For example the malevolent Immaterial Pink Unicorn who created the universe and through whom all morality is measured is 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 concept. No worship. No effect of worship. Probably nobody who even actually believes in the existence of this entity. Yet it remains conceptually recognisable as godly by all no matter what religion one does or does not adhere to.
Bluejay writes:
Besides, if someone else asking for God’s help makes them into gods, why doesn’t my asking for God’s help myself make me into a god?
Because you are no more possessing of godly attributes than either I, or a bog standard wooden pencil, is. The same cannot be said of Satan if looked at through anything other than the terminological self-justifying spectacles of Christianic nomenclature.
Bluejay writes:
If you chose to placate, appease or submit to a pencil, then it would be appropriate to call the pencil your god.
If you were to believe that a pencil was a god worthy of appeasement you would have to imbue it with additional conceptual attibutes would you not? Such as supernatural consciouness of some sort at the very least?
If they have no supernatural power in and of themselves (even if that power is simply supernatural persuasiveness of the supposed CEO of supernature i.e. God) why not just pray directly to God?
How is asking a saint to plead with God on my behalf any different from asking my living relatives and friends to pray on my behalf?
It is presumably considered more supernaturally effective. Effectiveness was your stated criteria. You initially stated that worship was your criteria:
Bluejay originally writes:
quote:
But, I think that there is at least one criterion beyond nomenclature for gods, but it doesn't have anything to do with the characteristics of the god him/her/itself, but with the characteristics of the believers in the god.
The criterion is worship.
Then I demonstrated that one can worship one god but still be a polytheist by believing in > 1 god and you clarified to say that effectiveness of worship was your stated citerion:
Bluejay then writes:
quote:
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.
I ten pointed out that Christians do indeed believe that the worship of Satan by others can have a profound effect (e.g. Satanic possession, facilitating temptation into eternal damnation etc.) you now seem to be reneging on worship as any criteria at all.
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?
Why should it be? Do other religions regard this as sufficient criteria to call something a god? If so, which religions?
You stated the effectiveness of a god as your criteria not me. Are you now changing your mind on this?
What made you decide that a point about subjectively changing nomenclature was an appropriate way to deal with my arguments?
Do you think Christianity has not been through this rebranding process as it has evolved from a more overt form of polytheism? Are many of the biblica concpts under discussion not just similarly rebranded concepts?
On a side note, I consider Mormonism to be polytheistic. We are non-Trinitarians, and, as such, Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost have different roles in our salvation, thus making them technically three different deities. Moreover, we hold that humans can become gods. Thus, we’re more accurately thought of as henotheistic, rather than monotheistic, anyway.
Of course, most Mormons will ague vehemently that we are true monotheists (nobody every agrees with me about anything relating to my religion).
And how does your position in dispute of what they believe about themselves differ significantly to my argument that biblical Christians are terminologically deluding themselves about their own monotheism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2010 6:54 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2010 9:34 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 275 of 375 (568425)
07-05-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2010 7:36 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
My position is not in fact stated in Message 230.
No. My questions asking you to justify your position are in Message 230. Apparentl you can't.
You have stated that wooden pencils unimbued with any supernatural properties can qualify as gods. You have described those that believe in a host of malevolent supernatural entities (which directly mirror the roles of benevolent gods in our little tribal scenario) as atheists.
This is not a straw man.
DA writes:
But, yes, seriously, if you started worshiping pencils as gods, then I guess they'd be your gods. It's not actually cheating to worship something that really exists.
DA writes:
Now it is being claimed that one can call oneself an atheist without batting an eye whilst believing in a host of supernatural beings that do things like torture the souls of the wicked for all eternity, blight crops, inflict nightmares and induce cot death.
Well yes. 'Cos then you'd just believe in demons.
There's a difference between a theist and a superstitious atheist.
If you cant justify your attempted refutation of my argument that the term "god" has conceptual properties that are independent of any religion without saying silly things then maybe you ought to think about why that is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 7:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 8:23 PM Straggler has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 276 of 375 (568428)
07-05-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Straggler
07-05-2010 8:14 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
No. My questions asking you to justify your position are in Re: Good Gods Vs Bad gods (Message 230). Apparentl you can't.
It didn't seem to have much to do with my position.
You have stated that wooden pencils unimbued with any supernatural properties can qualify as gods. You have described those that believe in a host of malevolent supernatural entities (which directly mirror the roles of benevolent gods in our little tribal scenario) as atheists.
No.
If you cant justify your attempted refutation of my argument that the term "god" has conceptual properties that are independent of any religion ...
What are they?
I don't think that "because Straggler says so" is really the sort of "conceptual property" that we can work with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 277 of 375 (568432)
07-05-2010 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2010 8:23 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
It didn't seem to have much to do with my position.
Are you denying that the quotes provided in the previous post are representative of your position?
You have stated that wooden pencils unimbued with any supernatural properties can qualify as gods. You have described those that believe in a host of malevolent supernatural entities (which directly mirror the roles of benevolent gods in our little tribal scenario) as atheists.
No.
Yes.
Here are the quotes again:
DA writes:
But, yes, seriously, if you started worshiping pencils as gods, then I guess they'd be your gods. It's not actually cheating to worship something that really exists.
So do tell - What are these godly pencils that "really exist"?
DA writes:
Now it is being claimed that one can call oneself an atheist without batting an eye whilst believing in a host of supernatural beings that do things like torture the souls of the wicked for all eternity, blight crops, inflict nightmares and induce cot death.
Well yes. 'Cos then you'd just believe in demons.
There's a difference between a theist and a superstitious atheist.
Why demons and not malevolent gods? Especially since they are the mirror image conceptually of those benevolent beings we are both calling gods in the scenaio under discussion.
If you cant justify your attempted refutation of my argument that the term "god" has conceptual properties that are independent of any religion ...
What are they?
Those qualities that I, with my new name of God, am lacking such that your belief in my existence fails to qualify you as a theist.
So - You tell me - As I have been asking for some time now.
As discussed in more detail in Message 230
I don't think that "because Straggler says so" is really the sort of "conceptual property" that we can work with.
I do think that your position on godly pencils and atheistic believers in malevalant gods is kinda both funny and indicative of some poor starting assumptions on your part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 9:06 PM Straggler has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 278 of 375 (568438)
07-05-2010 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Straggler
07-05-2010 8:43 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
So do tell - What are these godly pencils that "really exist"?
I'm an atheist. There aren't any. But if you thought there were, you'd be a theist.
Why demons and not malevolent gods?
Because we are speaking the English language, and words have meanings.
Those qualities that I, with my new name of God, am lacking such that your belief in my existence fails to qualify you as a theist.
Is there any chance you could answer the question?
So - You tell me - As I have been asking for some time now.
And when you do, I refer you to my post with the title "God-Spotting", where I gave you an answer. Why you wish to pretend that I have not answered this question is one of life's little mysteries.
Your turn. How are you identifying gods?
I do think that your position on godly pencils and atheistic believers in malevalant gods is kinda both funny and indicative of some poor starting assumptions on your part.
I think we have all grasped the fact that you think that my position is wrong. Or at least that you think that what you pretend my position is is wrong.
Now, how about you state your own position? How do you identify gods?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 8:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 279 of 375 (568443)
07-05-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Straggler
07-05-2010 7:56 PM


Re: "Ineffectual" Worship
Hi, Straggler.
How you put together your posts so quickly is a mystery that will always escape me.
Straggler writes:
Because I am arguing that "god" has conceptual meaning that is religion-independent. Conceptual meaning that is not dependent on worship or theism or belief or benevolence or indeed any of the other things being cited here by others.
Worship is a conceptual criterion. I gave "god" a conceptual definition: a supernatural being that is worshiped (concise version).
When you challenged me on it, I realized that I needed to clarify because I had made a blunder in my definition. The act of worship is not what makes a being god, but the belief that the worship would effectively fulfill its intended practical or spiritual purpose (which, I note on rereading, I also worded poorly).
So, a god is a supernatural being that can allegedly be placated, appeased or otherwise engaged directly to effectively fulfill an intended practical or spiritual purpose.
Within Christianity, it is believed that Satan does not actually fulfill practical or spiritual purposes, but provides the illusion of fulfilling these purposes for as long as it suits his purposes to make you think this.
This, I believe, is ineffectual.
-----
Straggler writes:
For example the malevolent Immaterial Pink Unicorn who created the universe and through whom all morality is measured is 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 concept. No worship. No effect of worship. Probably nobody who even actually believes in the existence of this entity. Yet it remains conceptually recognisable as godly by all no matter what religion one does or does not adhere to.
The IPU is a hypothetical entity presented as a being that can be invoked for fulfillment of spiritual needs.
Thus, hypothetically, the IPU would count as a (hypothetical) god.
-----
Straggler writes:
(Saint worship) is presumably considered more supernaturally effective.
Most Christians believe that people differ in faith and righteousness. Some people are thought to have greater faith, and are thus more able to receive and recognize the gifts of God. Saints are people who have proven their great faith, so it makes sense to turn to them in cases where faith is required.
If my mother has great faith, it would be common for people to ask for her prayers on their behalf. Would you consider this deifying my mother?
-----
Straggler writes:
Bluejay writes:
Straggler writes:
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?
Why should it be? Do other religions regard this as sufficient criteria to call something a god? If so, which religions?
You stated the effectiveness of a god as your criteria not me. Are you now changing your mind on this?
The effectiveness of worship was my criterion, not the effectiveness of the purported god.
Having magical or supernatural powers isn’t the criterion that makes something a god. Polytheistic religions are often also full of supernatural beings that are not considered gods alongside the many beings that are considered gods: the Norse had Fenrir and frost giants, the Celts and Gaels had pixies and brownies and other religions and mythologies had werewolves and werehyenas.
But none of these things were considered gods. Why? Because they were not regarded as worth worshiping.
Does any religion that you know of consider a being that they do not think can be worshiped to any real effect a god?
If not, then that is a universal, objective criterion for determining what a god is.
-----
Straggler writes:
Do you think Christianity has not been through this rebranding process as it has evolved from a more overt form of polytheism? Are many of the biblical concepts under discussion not just similarly rebranded concepts?
Sure, Christianity has polytheistic roots. But, more than just the names have changed over time. Abrahamic religions became monotheistic when they accepted the tenet that no other being is to be worshiped, nor can provide them with the spiritual fulfillment that they require.
Edited by Bluejay, : emphases
Edited by Bluejay, : "allegedly"
Edited by Bluejay, : "presented as" twice in one sentence

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 7:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 1:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 280 of 375 (568477)
07-06-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Straggler
07-05-2010 6:27 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
PP writes:
Straggler writes:
Firstly you still haven't explained to me how it is that regardless of naming myself God belief in my existence does not constitute a form of theism.
This is true regardless of whether one is Christian, Hindu, Muslim, agnostic, atheist or anything else.
Why is that? What am I lacking?
Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence mainly should I go on?
Rather than simply ranting about how right you are maybe you could try re-considering the criteria by which godliness can be determined? This time I suggest that you try and do so without eliminating the vast majority of human theistic belief in the process.
We all agree that I am not a god. But why exactly is this?
I say I lack the conceptual criteria to be described as such. Others here disagree. Others say that there are no such criteria. Others cite worship, or being attached to a form of theism, or being benevolent etc. etc.
What do you say?
What conceptual criteria do recognisable god concepts such as Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu, Kali etc. etc. etc. possess that I do not?
Firstly your quote/reply was to wrong post than you claimed and replied to, you also ignored all the points in between the post you pulled that from and the one you claimed to be quoting and replying to at bottom of both that post and your subsequent post. Quite sad when you cant even get that straight, no wonder you are so confused and over your head
Secondly, instead of randomly ranting on and you repeating yourself how about you address all the logical fallacy concepts I pointed out. Or the point about the differences between worship (adoration) and veneration. Or the point we made about naming yourself President or Queen or any other title, or the point of trying to compare an atheistic and the theistic definition/concept of god with circular reasoning.
Your not God, because you did not create the Universe, life, or the countless other glories that would make that title appropriate. Your "conceptual criteria" is majorly flawed, the reasons have been pointed out repeatedly in this thread. Your refusal to even have a meaningful discussion and instead resorting to one red herring after another is bordering on lunacy. You refuse to even address the vast majority of points that blow holes in your position and wild assumptions.
I have pointed out several conceptual criteria, as you say, that states where your position doesnt hold any water and is actually quite poor, Whether or not you choose to address or accept them is beyond my control.
Edited by Practical Prodigy, : Spelling
Edited by Practical Prodigy, : Rephrase


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 6:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 2:07 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 284 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 2:08 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 281 of 375 (568544)
07-06-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Blue Jay
07-05-2010 9:34 PM


Re: "Ineffectual" Worship
Bluejay writes:
The effectiveness of worship was my criterion, not the effectiveness of the purported god.
Bluejay writes:
This, I believe, is ineffectual.
You may well think this is ineffectual. But many Christians do not think that Satanic worship is ineffectual at all. In fact they fear it greatly. Have you never seen the Christian furore over the idea that Satanic prayers are being subliminally implanted into heavy metal music? Or the Christian concerns over teenagers dabbling with the occult in a manner that they believe leads headlong into Satanic worship and eternal damnation through playing Dungeons and Dragons? Do you think they agree with you that worshipping Satan is ineffectual?
How about those who believe in, and fear, Satanic possession? What about Pope Benedict’s assertion that the world is in the grip of Satan and his plans to re-implement exorcist squads? Exorcisms based around prayers to the Archangel Michael for heavens sake. By your own definitions here these practises are surely polytheistic?
Bluejay writes:
So, a god is a supernatural being that can be placated, appeased or otherwise engaged directly to effectively fulfill an intended practical or spiritual purpose.
Bluejay writes:
Saints are people who have proven their great faith, so it makes sense to turn to them in cases where faith is required. If my mother has great faith, it would be common for people to ask for her prayers on their behalf. Would you consider this deifying my mother?
No. Because your mother isn’t supernatural. But the virgin Mary is. And millions flock to worship her and pray to her because they believe that doing so is supernaturally effective. Even if it is effective in the sense of having supernatural influence over the CEO of supernature that is Yahweh. By your own criterium of effectiveness and supernaturality this would again seem polytheistic. No?
Bluejay writes:
The IPU is presented as a hypothetical entity presented as a being that can be invoked for fulfillment of spiritual needs.
Thus, hypothetically, the IPU would count as a (hypothetical) god.
Hypothetical or otherwise it is recognisably a god concept in conceptual terms alone. Nobody need actually worship it for this to be the case. But if someone believed that worshiping this supernatural entity would actually have an effect they would not be able to legitimately call themselves an atheist would they? Even if they did not worship this being themselves. By your own definitions.
Bluejay writes:
Does any religion that you know of consider a being that they do not think can be worshiped to any real effect a god?
If not, then that is a universal, objective criterion for determining what a god is.
I would agree that it is part of it. As is supernaturality. On this much we seem to agree. The question is are many Christians implicitly acknowledging the effectiveness of worshipping supernatural entities other than Yahweh? Their evident fear of Satan worship alone would suggest that the answer to this is indisputably — Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Blue Jay, posted 07-05-2010 9:34 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Phat, posted 07-06-2010 2:29 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 291 by Blue Jay, posted 07-06-2010 9:23 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 282 of 375 (568549)
07-06-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2010 9:06 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
DA writes:
But, yes, seriously, if you started worshiping pencils as gods, then I guess they'd be your gods. It's not actually cheating to worship something that really exists. Perhaps a little unconventional.
Straggler writes:
So do tell - What are these godly pencils that "really exist"?
Dr A writes:
I'm an atheist. There aren't any. But if you thought there were, you'd be a theist.
Don't play dum. You are the one that said they "really exist". You even went so far as to say that it would be a little "unconventional" to worship something that "really exists". So what are these godly pencils that you think "really exist"?
Dr A writes:
Or at least that you think that what you pretend my position is is wrong.
Let's take the pencil theism example above. What you did is take worship as your criteria without acknowledging the fact that in order to worship something as a god that thing needs to be imbued with additional recognisably godly conceptual attributes by those who believe that it is a god. A wooden pencil un-imbued with any additional conceptual attributes is simply a material wooden pencil. Not a god by anybody's reckoning. But a pencil theist will have imbued his pencil with conceptual attributes like (but not limited to) being supernatural, being consciousness and being able to willfully affect either this material reality or the supernatural reality in which that thing resides.
You overlooked the conceptual component of what it necessarily means to actually believe that something actually is a "god". This oversight of conceptual meaning is what makes your statement look silly.
Dr A writes:
Because we are speaking the English language, and words have meanings.
And just like every other word in the English language the word "god" has common conceptual meaning that is not dependent wholly on the individual beliefs of those using it. That is my point here.
And when you do, I refer you to my post with the title "God-Spotting", where I gave you an answer.
You have talked about tiers of beings. You have never stated anything other than that. As the pencil-theism debacle above demonstrates this is insufficient for identifying god concepts.
Your turn. How are you identifying gods?
In exactly the same way I identify anything else. Why would I do any differently? Let's imagine a game of guess the concept. I am thinking of a concept. You can ask questions to see if you can identify what that concept is.
After some questions you have ascertained that concept X is a brown furry mammal that barks at postmen and licks his balls. You correctly deduce that concept X is a dog.
Similarly with concept Y. You ask some questions and are informed that concept Y is an immaterial eternal entity who blights the crops of those who fail to appease him through ritual human sacrifice. You correctly deduce that concept Y is a god.
Why do you think the term "god" is different to any other with regard to being conceptually recognisable independently of individual belief?
When Christians define god to maintain their monotheistic facade you cheer them on. When Christians define good in such a way as to be able to claim that a genocidal despot is incapable of evil you are first in line to give them a conceptual trouncing.
Why? What is the difference? Why is one concept defined wholly in terms of their religion and the other not?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2010 9:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2010 9:32 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 283 of 375 (568551)
07-06-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Practical Prodigy
07-06-2010 3:12 AM


Re: No, You're Not God
Your not God, because you did not create the Universe, life, or the countless other glories that would make that title appropriate.
I wholly agree that I am not a god. But your explanation as to why I am not a god has once again wiped out the vast majority of human theism and demoted the great majority of historical gods to mere objects of atheistic superstition.
May Apollo curse you.
There are some intelligent people taking part in this thread. People whom I think it is worth discussing this stuff with (whatever disagreements I may have with their position on this issue)
But you, alas, are not one of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 3:12 AM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 7:18 PM Straggler has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 284 of 375 (568553)
07-06-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Practical Prodigy
07-06-2010 3:12 AM


Re: No, You're Not God
Your not God, because you did not create the Universe, life, or the countless other glories that would make that title appropriate.
Huh. Sorry but that is not a very strong argument.
Christianity does lay claim that there is a creator, and many people even believe in that creator, but that provides no support for the reality of the Christian God. There is as much support for Raven or Brahma or Amun or any of the other creators mentioned in mythology.
But the question is whether or not Christianity is polytheistic?
The answer to that depends on the era of the respondent as well as the context of the particular discussion. The early Jews were definitely polytheistic.
Historically, Satan is a lesser creature, a servant of the Judaic God. Much later the myth of a fallen angel was incorporated although the source of that myth was excluded from some Canons, particularly the Western Canon.
Even then though, Satan was not a God but rather something even less than man.
The real internal inconsistency though is the concept of the Trinity, and the only way to deny that it is polytheistic is to simply make a denial, and that is what Christianity does, we declare it a "Mystery", a Unity of Three.
What we don't do though is ever present a model that truly explains it.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 3:12 AM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 7:22 PM jar has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 285 of 375 (568556)
07-06-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Straggler
07-06-2010 1:17 PM


Two spirits...two vibes...One Spirit
Straggler writes:
The question is are many Christians implicitly acknowledging the effectiveness of worshiping supernatural entities other than Yahweh? Their evident fear of Satan worship alone would suggest that the answer to this is indisputably — Yes.
The way that I was taught years ago is that there is basically two spirits...the One Holy Spirit and the sub classification of all of the other fallen angelic hosts. Some fundamentalists would lump the many Hindu deities and the Islamic "moon god", Allah, as part of the sub classification, but there is no evidence to support such claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 1:17 PM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024