Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Given that I have no idea what associationism in philosophy is I am probably not adhering to that school of thought. I too think that there are recognisably godly criterion. My point is that these are religion independent and can thus be applied objectively to label a concept as "god".But that is not the same as a list of criteria that all gods must have. Which seems to be what Dr. A was trying to get out of me and which is what I have spent much of this thread arguing is both impossible and irrelevant. Other than removing the word "physical" in this context - I would basically agree with that I think.

Is there any doubt? How many of these discussions, and such all over the internet and beyond, degenerate into semantical squabbles? Why would that be if a lot of the words we use were not subjective, open to interpretation, amenable to manipulation for the sake of making one's point?"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton Well, 42, of course. Plus or minus a few hundred or thousand, I suppose. Making an exact determination would be difficult since what is or is not "subjective" would be, yeah, subjective. My reference was to "(G)od concepts" not to the concept of a generic (g)od label. I drew a distinction between the two. Thought it might help clarify the discussion. Wrong, again. Oh. And I thought we were having fun.

Nope.Once you figure out the difference between a concept of god and a God-concept, you let me know and then we can continue this discussion.

And my entire point in this thread is that the term "god" is not a meaningless label devoid of conceptual meaning. That it is instead a term with common conceptual meaning that is not reliant on the specific definition imposed by any religion. "concept of a generic (g)od label" - What does that mean? Does it have conceptual qualities? If so what are they? If it is solely a label can it be applied to anything at all? (e.g. bog standard wooden pencils un-imbued with any supernatural or other recognisably godly properties whatsoever) So it is fine to describe Yahweh of the OT as "good" because Christians define it to be so?
If words have no objective meaning at all then all communication becomes impossible. Thus such words must have common conceptual meaning. To some extent at least. Maybe your subjective use of the term "fun" has nothing at all in common with mine Anyway - Why do you think being "academic and inconsequential" precludes something from being "fun"?

So you say "god" has no conceptual meaning outside the context of a particular religion.But previously you say: So "god" has no conceptual meaning outside the context of a particular religion but the concept of "god" exists even without any of the specifics that have been applied to it. Can you see why this might seem somewhat contradictory?In order to clarify perhaps you could tell us what qualities this non-specific=religion concept of "god" possesses? And could bog standard wooden pencils un-imbued with any supernatural consciousness ever qualify as such?

Because you're trying to make a contradiction? That should be big-G God, as in a religion having a definition of God. A God-concept. This is obviously religion dependent. There, I'm talking about having a concept of a god. You can have a concept of a god without a religion providing you with a definition of God. This is religion independent.Make sense?Now, you're arguing that Satan should count as a concept of a god, which could be agreeable, but you can't make that out to be a God-concept for a particular religion so you can call them polytheistic when their God-concept doesn't include the concept of a god that you brought up. Well, you can, but people are probably gonna tell you how stupid that is.

As the world's leading authority on what I think, I can quite definitely say that I haven't. Unless we add the further facts that it has six legs, wings, horns and mandibles, and breathes fire. Quite. Except that "we" do so differently. When I see something which I "associate" with demons, I don't call it a god.Now, if you won't provide one of those hated "dictionary style definitions", then I need only say that by your own criterion Satan is not a god --- when it's me doing the associating.Unless you can provide some sort of objective reason why your mental associations are superior to mine, then there seems to be nothing more that you can say on the subject. I don't know. I'm also not sure what they'd do if you asked them to draw a feline dog.Here's a question for you. If we were to ask a room full of people to draw, describe or depict in some way their idea of the opposite of a god, what do you think they'd come up with? An odd non sequitur. Another odd non sequitur. And I may tell them that this is a silly rule, and that I know a better game --- but I can't tell them that this isn't one of the rules of the game they're playing. It is one thing to dispute with people as to what is good and bad, and about how many gods there are. It is another thing to dispute with them about what their religion counts as sins and virtues, and about what their religion counts as a god. The former is a dispute about ethics and theology, in which my opinions are as good as theirs. The latter is a dispute about anthropology --- in which the culture being studied, it seems to me, always gets the last word.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And no one disagrees. The disagreement is in your attempt to then use this subjective generic small-g definition to try telling Christians what they believe. You totally miss the distinction between "(g)od" and "(G)od" as applied to Christianity. To you Satan qualifies as the former. To a Christian Satan does not qualify as the latter. Bold, mine.And there lies the issue. Who defines "good"? It is subjective. Sure there are yellow lines confining a generic concept of "good" but they are quite spread apart, aren't they. One is free to maneuver between the lines to achieve a desired result. You and I would not apply "good" to Yahweh. Christians do. That's why we get to laugh at them so hard and they get to tell us where to go.Further, I submit that all definitions of all words are subjective. Constrained to some extent, yes, but open to subjective interpretation. Bill Clinton is the poster child of this phenom. This does not make communication impossible but fraught with difficulty and misunderstanding. This is why even the best communicators with the most intimate knowledge of their intended audience so often miss their mark. By my subjective definition of "inconsequential", of course. If I'm having fun then it is not irrelevant which is what one of my subjective definitions of "inconsequential" entails.

That is lovely to hear. No. I am not telling anyone what they believe. I am perfectly aware that biblical Christians believe themselves to be monotheists in exactly the same way that I accept that biblical Christians genuinely do believe that Yahweh is incapable of evil.But I am suggesting that by any non-specific-religion common meaning of either "good" or "god" they are wrong on both counts. No. I am well aware that there is an internal Christian distinction. I am simply suggesting that this distinction is no more valid than the assertion that genocidal rape inducing Yahweh is capable only of good.Both rely on internal Christian definitions which there is no reason to apply if considering these questions objectively. I fully expected biblical Christians to tell me where to go in this thread. What is less obvious is why you laugh at them when they apply their unique Christians specific notion of what is "good" but insist that we all accept their definition of "god".Why not apply the common conceptual meaning in both cases consistently?

Well you would say that wouldn't you? Perhaps you can definitively clarify your position regarding "god" as a term with conceptual meaning Vs god as a subjective label by answering the following question I originally posed in Message 230Dave 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? As previously discussed human methods of conceptual labeling don't function like mobile perception enabled dictionaries. So why insist on this?If you want a dictionary definition of god then I suggest you look one up. There are a multitude available. We could engage in argumentum dictionarium ad-infinitum but in terms of conceptual meaning the results are unlikely to be very enlightening or satisfying. Much like your rather inadequate definition of "life". Some concepts are unable to be satisfactorily summed up in a line or two of universal attributes. Well in what conceptual sense are Loki, Thor, Baal, Kali or Apollo gods but Satan not? Unless you can answer that without simply asserting that we must accept the subjective labels imposed by individual religions there would seem to be nothing more that you can say on the subject. I have never disputed that biblical Christians genuinely believe themselves to be monotheists. Any more than I dispute that biblical Christians genuinely consider Yahweh to be incapable of evil.I am simply suggesting that by the common religion-independent conceptual meaning of either of these terms they are wrong on both counts. By any common religion-independent conceptual meaning of the term "god" biblical Christians are polytheistic. By any common religion-independent conceptual meaning of the term "good" Yahweh of the OT is a bit of an evil bastard.Why do they get the last word on "god" but not on "good"?
Be specific.

Your implication is that all creatures in the universe which the supreme Biblical god, Jehovah has allegedly created above the intelligence and capability of humankind on our tiny speck in the universe called Planet Earth are to be considered gods.According to the Biblical record there are varied varieties of angels and other creatures in the Universe, both good and evil, all designed and created by the one monotheistic god of the Universe, Jehovah. This includes his son, Jesus, son of the one Biblical god and the Holy Spirit, spirit of both son and father and in fact also spirit of "born again" i.e. born from above humans who have received God's son Jesus as both lord (master) and savior.Your misconception, Straggler, is that the the only non-god creatures in the universe are itty bitty Planet Earth humans. Any other alleged creatures of higher intelligence and capabilities in the Universe are conceived by you as gods.Jesus, procreated son of God, born of a human virgin via divine conception called Jehovah, the mono-Biblical god his god.In the days of Joseph in Egypt, Pharoah was king. The status of Joseph in the kingdom was such that he was equally revered and obeyed as Pharoah, the king. Joseph was a type of Jesus in that though not the supreme god of the universe perse, he is revered and worshipped by earth humankind. He remains son of Jehovah, god of the universe, however. He said in John 14 that his father is greater than him and in I Corinthians 15 that after he puts all under his feet, he will again become subject to his father that his God may be "all in all." We do not understand all this implies but then our understanding of what we call the "trinity" is limited. All three members of the Trinity have different functions; Jehovah being the head/supreme, Jesus being our high priest/mediator between God and man and the one in whose worthy name we pray to God and the Holy Spirit being the multi-present spirit of father and son which effects work in the universe which Jehovah porposes to do.So far as what is good, if Jehovah be supreme, the term good is relevant to his will. He alone has the right to create, destroy and manage things in his universe. As for "genocide" in the OT, he chose a tiny area of real estate in the Mid East which was totally pagan to eventually become the cite for his kingdom on earth to be the land where his messiah would rule the world. The genocide was ordered by Jehovah and was to be limited to that one little parcel of real estate. Thus Jesus's non-violent position in the NT.If Jehovah be god of the Universe, Jehovah alone determines what is good and what is evil.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I'd have to know more about his attitude. But he certainly seems to be moving towards constructing a monotheism out of the raw materials of Greek polytheism. Such things have happened before. I didn't insist on it. I said that if you are going to stick with your definition-by-association, then when I am doing the associating, Satan isn't a god. See my post on "God-Spotting". So they believe that they believe that there is only one god, but really they believe that there are several? The common religion-independent conceptual meaning? You mean the one you can't define and we can't agree on? The two cases seem exactly parallel to me.I can argue with them about what is good, but they get the last word on what they think is good.I can argue with them about how many gods there are, but they get the last word on how many gods they think there are.

Because there is no such thing.

So by simply re-branding an identical concept with different nomenclature gods can become non-gods. You are back to god as a mere label again. So now let us examine your position on god as a concept: Of course I am a God. Having changed my name to God I am a God in exactly the same sense that Paul McCartney (for example) is a Paul. In what sense are you saying that I am not a God?Be specific. This is not a rhetorical question. In fact it is arguably the key question to our differences here. They believe in a host of entities which could accurately be described as gods by all but their own internal definition. Me too. That is why I raised them in parallel. Indeed.Based on their internal definition biblical Christians believe that they believe in a god that is good. We both disagree that the god they believe in can accurately be described as good.Based on their internal definitions Biblical Christians believe that they believe in only one god. I am suggesting that many of the other entities in which they also believe can accurately be described as gods whether they choose to label them as such or not. Would you like to define the common conceptual meaning of the term "good"?And could you actually answer why it is that we can all agree that conceptually I quite blatantly don't qualify as a god?

Which is it?And are you now saying that there is no common conceptual meaning to any words (e.g. "good") or is it just the term "god" you consider to be devoid of any common conceptual meaning?