|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The last thing I am claiming to be is an arbiter of what is god. What I want to know is how anyone can recognise theism or god concepts in other cultures without also concluding that Satan is just such a concept. Satan IS including as such a concept. Like, there are satanists who worship satan as a god and that god concept would be included as a part of the group of cultures that have god concepts and are considered theists.
When discussing theism in these objective terms the concept of Satan is as worthy of godhood as any other such concept. So in what objective religion-independent sense is biblical Christianity not polytheistic? Christians don't worship or recognize satan as thier god, or one of their gods... although that's hardly religion-independent. But you have to be religion-dependent to see the problem with your position. Christians recognizing that there are other god concepts besides their own does not bring them to the position of believing in the existence of multiple gods, as required for polytheism. Observing the existence of multiple god concepts does not make one a believer in multiple Gods (I'm using god and God differently here). Now, I do see what I think you are seeing as an inconsistency here, in that satan counts as a god when we're counting up cultures that have gods but does not count as a god when we're talking about how many gods there are... but your conclusion that Christianity should be considered polytheistic doesn't follow from that. You're conflating two different things that are being labeled as "god". One is the god of another group, as in the concept of them having a god, and the other is the god that one believes actually exists as a God. So, you want to say that Christians should be considering these other groups' gods as Gods when they're counting up the groups with gods if they want to be consistant, but they're counting up the groups that have the concept of a god, but not counting up those groups whose gods are cosidered God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? They would. As I said, Satanists have a god concept and it is satan.
And thus (objectively speaking) accept that Christianity is polytheistic? Because even though they recognize that satan can be a god concept, they don't think that he is a God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yet if both Satan and Yahweh are objectively recognised as god concepts then this indisputably makes biblical Christianity objectively polytheistic does it not? Of course not. And frankly, that's retarded. Nice try though You get an 'A' for effort. Unless you want to argue the definition of "polytheistic"?
quote: How could it be any less clear unless you are desperately trying to make Christianity out to be polytheistic? ABE:
Yet if both Satan and Yahweh are objectively recognised as god concepts then this indisputably makes biblical Christianity objectively polytheistic does it not? Assuming you're correct, that would make everybody a polythiest... Do you deny that Yahweh is a god concept or are you a polythiest? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Biblical Christians believe in the existence of both Satan and Yahweh. The only reason they accept Loki (for example) as a god concept but deny the same status to Satan is because they believe Satan exists and the existence of two god concepts doesn't fit well with their monotheistic view of themselves. No, that's not why. Satan is a fallen angel, not a god. Subbie's right: they don't form a definition of what counts as a god and then see what fits within it. Believing in spiritual beings that are not called gods does not make them polytheistic even though other religons might consider those spiritual beings as gods.
Can anthropologists, arcaheologists and historians recognise forms of theism and god concepts without relying on the specific definitions and qualifications imposed by individual religions? Not really because it all depends on how the religion views its spritiual beings. You can't call an atheistic animist a polythiest just because you think its spiritual beings should be considered gods.
If an alien anthropologist studying the dead race of humanity in the far flung future investigated biblical Christianity they would conclude that it is a polytheistic religion that considered itself monotheistic. I don't think so. Christians believe that there is only one God. All the other spiritual being don't count as gods. You, yourself, might think all those spiritual beings should count as gods, but that doesn't matter to the Christians and I think an anthropologist would recognize this. From Message 175:
Well if you want to understand my point in this thread maybe you should try and consider what an anthropologist looking at this question dispassionately and from a religion-independent point of view would see looking at the bible. How could they possibly not conclude that the whole Yahweh/Christ Vs Satan/Anti-Christ thing is anything but good gods vs bad gods regardless of what labels the particular followers of any particular aspect might assert? Here, your word "gods" is not the same as what a Chirstian would call "God". You calling all spirtual beings as gods and not distinguishing between a God and other spiritual beings like the Christians and everyone else do. You're changing the definition of the word "polythiestic" to include all the various spiritual beings as counting as a "god".
Are Satanists who worship Satan but believe in the existence of both Satan and Yahweh polytheists? I would say obvioulsy so.
Using your own personal definition of polythiesm, sure. But using the real definition, its not so obvious. There's different types of Satanists out there... some think that Satan is the real God and Yahweh is not so they would be monotheistic. Some think that Satan is not God but worship him anyway. Some are atheists because they don't believe in any gods at all but "regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature." source Only when you conflate all the distinctions between God, gods, and various other spiritual beings can you come up with these different beliefs as all being obviously polytheistic. And I still think this is just a desperate attempt by you to label Christians as polythiests... probably for some trolling purposes. From Message 178 Dr A writes: Apparently, by virtue of being absolutely anyone in the whole world except you. Apparently not. See below.
Percy writes: There is no substantial difference between the minor gods of the ancient Greeks and Christian angels. In reality Christians believe in a host of supernatural beings, just like the ancient Greeks, and the fact that they prefer the label "angels" instead of "gods" is just a matter of nomenclature. Message 214 I actually agree with Percy... It is just a matter of nomenclature. Christianity's angels are a lot like the Greeks' gods but they don't consider them gods ergo they are not polytheistic. You have to ignore the nomenclature and redefine polytheism in order for your argument to stand, but then you're really not saying anything at all anymore because almost all monothiests and any atheists who believed in spiritual beings would actually be polythiests. Its nonsensical. Like I said, you're either desperate or retarded. From Message 185 Are those Christians who worship the virgin Mary as well as God polytheists? I just want to make a side point here because people don't seem to understand what praying to Mary is all about... its not really "worship" in the sense that God is worshipped and you're not really praying to her as one prays to God. Take a look at the Hail Mary:
quote: It is asking for intercession from Mary... asking her to pray for us. Not worhiping her to get stuff like people do with God himself. Not that I want to argue this point here, I just wanted to clear up some misunderstanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the definitional relativism position people are taking in this thread let me ask you a question: Joe the Satanist worships the dark lord Satan and is awaiting the coming of the anti-Christ with great enthusiasm. Joe the Satanist readily acknowledges the godly existence of the Yahweh/Christ combo as depicted in the bible. Albeit as the divine and holy enemy of his own chosen despicable object of theistic worship. Is Joe the Satanist a polytheist?And why? No, fuck your game. You always do that. You address what I've taken my time to explain to you and then I'll answer your questions.
CS you are one who has made the argument that all known human cultures have believed in god(s). What concept of god were you referring to? Not one single concept... The point is that almost all people seem to be able to come to believing in a god or some gods. I think they might be on to something...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Understanding the internal distinctions by which the followers of individual religions convince themselves of the special nature of their gods or their forms of worship is not the same as adopting them. That's my point, and a polythiest is someone who has adopted multiple gods. Since Christians do not adopt those other gods they are not polytheists.
If you agree with Percy so much maybe you should look at his conclusions in a little more detail. I read a lot of that thread... I don't totally agree with Percy, but he makes a lot of sense and has a well thought out and articulated position.
Now about Joe the Satanist.........? Its complicated. Plus, I think Satan might be the one exception, but we can focus on the exception if you want. I maintain that believing in other spiritual beings like angels does not make one a polytheist even though you might like defining them as gods. Now, with Satan, it does seem that some christians' beliefs could be considered polythiestic. In the sense that Satan could be considered a god in his own right, they would be believing in two gods. But I don't think that makes all of christianity polytheistic. You're right though, some christians could be considered polytheistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hopefully it is clear to all that what I have been saying is not as ill founded or stupid as many here mockingly assumed it to be. Its not what you say, its all in how you say it.
Not all. But some. Fine. How do you think the replies would have differed if you had said that some christians could be called polytheistic if you consider satan to be a god? I still think this thread was a little trollish
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What is it I am lacking that makes me a wally on a debate board with a silly name rather than something that is recognisably godly? A couple of magic tricks might help...
Is "god" just a label that religions can define internally to prop up their self proclaimed monotheism? Or is it a term with conceptual meaning that is independent of any one religion? I don't think it is a term with conceptual meaning that is independent of any one religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So a criteria for godliness is that one is capable of supernatural feats? For me, yes.
OK. I have changed my name to God. I assume that you believe that I exist. So now you believe that I, God, exists. Which makes you a (poly)theist. No? If not why not exactly? What is it I am lacking that makes me a wally on a debate board with a silly name rather than something that is recognisably godly?
Capability of supernatural feats.
Everybody here will agree that I am not a god because I don't meet any recognisably godly conceptual citeria. Yet simultaneously I am told that there are no specific religion independent criteria by which godliness can be determined. You're dealing with peoples' beliefs here. You can either stay within them, and determine whether or not they are monotheistic by what they believe. Or you can go outside of them, and have a definition of god that they're not gonna agree with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So your other questions were thouroughly answered?
From an "outside" perspective (i.e. a specific-religion-independent perspective) biblical Christians are polytheists who believe themselves to be monotheists. By your own definition of god that they don't agree with. So... so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence mainly should I go on? To be fair to Straggler, the greek gods didn't necessarily have those qualities but could still rightly be called gods in the sense that the greeks were polytheistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In fact you are arguably one of this forums greatest proponents of the idea that there is a concept of god that is not tied to a specific religion. Have you changed your mind on this? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Can you see why this might seem somewhat contradictory? Because you're trying to make a contradiction?
Straggler writes:
I don't think it is a term with conceptual meaning that is independent of any one religion. Is "god" just a label that religions can define internally to prop up their self proclaimed monotheism? Or is it a term with conceptual meaning that is independent of any one religion? So you say "god" has no conceptual meaning outside the context of a particular religion.
That should be big-G God, as in a religion having a definition of God. A God-concept. This is obviously religion dependent.
But previously you say:
CS writes: The concept of god, in general, exists even without all the specifics that various cultures have ascribed to it. Message 59 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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wow... this thread really went downhill.
But by any religion-independent analysis they are polytheists. Not any, no. But for the particular classification of god that you are using, sure. As I said, BFD. I don't see any reason to impose your classification onto them as the way to determine if they are polytheistic. Its better to just use their's since we're considering them.
Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians? Its pointless. Nobody has any reason to care that you've defined god in a way that you can use to make out biblical christians to be polytheistic. Plus, you're shitting all over the definition of polytheism in the process.
Why must we un-questioningly adhere to their rules on this?
You can do whatever you want. But if you're discussing their beliefs, then it makes sense to use their definitions. If you want to make them out to be polytheistic, go right ahead. We'll continue to tell you how stupid it is From Message 300 In truth I started this thread because I was bored and I thought it would be contentious (no doubt CS would call this "trolling" From wiki on trolling:
quote: So yeah, you're trolling. Its no biggie. Here, have a funny pic:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Bob looked it up in the dictionary and confidently tells you that: "Atheist means that one doesn't believe in god(s)". Bob says he doesn't believe in gods. Bob says he is an atheist. Bob genuinely believes himself to be an atheist. Bob only believes in in the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen that he calls a glod. NOT a "god". Are you disagreeing with Bob's self defined atheistic status?
I wouldn't. Apparently Bob sees his glod as different enough from a god to call it by a different name. What's the point in deciding that you shouldn't call him an atheist?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024