Is Christianity Polytheistic?

What does the standard definition of "theist" have to do with a christian's view that their god is the only one and all other "theists" worship false gods?Just because one worships a set of false deities does not mean one is not a theist in the standard definition of that word that all, even christians, accept.Just because one is a christian does not mean they have a different definition for "pencil" from a hindu, does it? Why would they differ in their definition of "theist"? Where they differ is in saying this "theism" has false beliefs while my "theism" is the one and only real thing.

The "others" gods are gods because the "others" so define their gods. They do not fit the christian conception of god so to the christian they are false gods. Satan is not a god since the christians do not consider him a god. Inconsistent or not, it is their religion and they have the right to say which of their manifestations are gods and which are merely angels or saints or whatever. Straggler, you're looking for logical consistency in a religion?
"Logical Consistency" and "religion" do not play well together. You know this.When faced with an atheist claiming their god is as false as all others the religionist will use whatever comes to their tiny little minds by way of defense.

quote:

---

Hey, if all through human history every culture had gods then, obviously, there really is something to this god thing, right? Just need to get the right one, right?

---

Again, the logic of religion.The christian gets to say what is a god and what is not within their own creed. They also get to claim, as all religions do, that some other creed's views and their gods are bogus, false and blasphemous. Of course they can. All religionists can. That's why we get to make fun of them.

Outside the demented magic of the religious mind ...uhhh, yeeaahh.duh

Let's tighten this up a bit.There is no "outside" perspective from which to make a definition. God concepts are wholly and strictly specific-religion-dependent. You cannot have a "god concept" outside a specific religious view.You can talk about various god concepts. You can compare and contrast god concepts from an "outside" point of view. But you cannot make up a "god concept" outside the specifics of a religion.This is where your arguments all fall down. You're an atheist. You do not get to determine any specific criteria for a god concept. You have no religious base from which to form such a concept. I think it is actually illegal somewhere.You have syntactically twisted the concept of a "god concept" to make Christianity appear polytheistic. No one has any standing to make a religion-independent, or even dependent, god concept then try to shoehorn it into a specific belief system foreign to that concept. It's lunacy. You might as well go on about how evolution is denied by the 2nd Law of Thermal Documents.Hindu is polytheistic because they officially define many (hundred) god concepts. Christianity is monotheistic since they officially define only one. They also give elevated but considerably less than "god concept" status to various other personalities. But to say then, that from an "outside perspective," Satan is a "god concept" in Christianity because he may be seen with such a status in Hindu, or any other concept foreign to the creed, is ludicrous.Christianity is monotheistic because they say so. Any opinion, definition or (heaven forbid) logic to the contrary, especially from the "outside," notwithstanding.Now, out of "professional courtesy" Hindus and Christians recognize and accept the other's right to define their own god concepts, because they at least understand that this is what religions are supposed to do, but will fight and kill each other for being wrong, blasphemous and ... well ... just plain ugly, which apparently is another thing religions are supposed to do.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : Re-order paragraphs for clarity. I think.

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.

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.

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.

Now you're getting there. The Greeks believed in the existence of (g)ods (supernatural beings with physical-law defying powers). They believed in multiple (G)od Concepts they named Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite. They were polytheistic. They did not believe in other (G)ods like Krishna, He Xaingu or Kaang. So says you. Christianity only has the one (G)od. All the others are functionaries without any (G)odhood attached. This defines christianity as monotheistic. First, the point where we differ in this discussion is that defining (g)od means nothing to a specific theism only to the academic. Defining (G)od is the provence of specific creeds and in Christianity there is only the one.In this case an errant academic can scream "Polytheist! Polytheist!" till the cows come home but it means nothing.Second, defining "good" to encompass everything that some (G)od (YHWH) does would be an interesting semantical and philosophical discussion. The major problem being that a definition of "good" would be so subjective (relative morality) as to be worthless.This is the same problem in shaping ones definition of (g)od(s) to produce a desired outcome. It can, for instance, be manipulated to make a monotheistic religion appear to be polytheistic and visa versa. Defining (G)od(s), however, is/are easy and straightforward and ultimately defines what is and is not monotheistic/polytheistic.Edited by AZPaul3, : error, error and error

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.

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.

Because there is no such thing.

That is correct. The term exists and has conceptual meaning. This is also correct. The conceptual meaning of the term is so subjective that a common universal understanding of its definition does not exist.So we are left with only subjectively derived definitions. Also, the application of any subjective definition is context sensitive. Both, dependent on context. Languages work that way. Both.I thought I covered this earlier. Obviously not well enough.With the term "good" you and I can (subjectively) agree on a meaning that excludes Yahweh. Others subjective definitions would include Yahweh. And still others would use the latter as the definitive definition of the former.With the (small-g) term "god" you have a subjective definition manipulated to assert that Christianity is in fact polytheistic. And, indeed, using your definition Christianity may appear so.Further I cannot object to your definition per se. I object to your application of this subjective definition to assert something the vast majority of the rest of the world would conclude is false.There appears to be a disconnect here, so pick one:1. Your definition is wrong.
2. The application of your definition is wrong.
3. Christianity (along with the rest of the world) is wrong.I think I know which one you would choose. And I think we will just have to disagree on your choice.

Unless he has a screw loose Bob most probably would not call himself atheist. Though, if in discussion, the term theist were, for some absurd reason, agreed to be defined as only a belief in Achaman, then Bob would probably accept the label atheist.Depends on context.Carol believes in a divine spirit that permeates the universe and binds all life and all things in a shared experience in common existence.Is Carol atheist? Need to separate the contexts.In a general discussion of "god/s" (not any specific capital-G "God") in the midsts of a religious community there is a fairly good probability of a shared conception that is religion independent.But in a mixed or unknown community where it would be prudent to ask "what do you mean by god?" (note: not asking which God) then obviously no.Depends on context. Your cited CS "Message 11" is in error.I have yet to see Catholic Scientist devolve into gibberish so please do not ascribe any of my musings to denote such an absurdity.When CS uses the term I have no doubt he has in mind what he believes to be a good generic set of religion-independent attributes. But what are they? Bob's, Carol's, both, neither?It is a subjectively defined concept that may or may not be shared by the rest of us.Since, in this context, we know CS from his past posts, we can reasonably assume his use of the generic small-g "god" term is more in line with Bob's concepts then Carol's or still others that have been known to exist.Also, CS said

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

You calling all spirtual beings as gods and not distinguishing between a God and other spiritual beings like the Christians and everyone else do.

---

et al.You ignore these restrictions on his subjective definition since they do not further your goal. You are allowed to do that since the definition is subjective after all. Agreed. Again from his use of the term in specific context and with familiarity with CS's past posts together with an assumed acculturation we seem to have in common within this EvC community, we can determine a good portion and even share his subjective definition.It is subjective nonetheless and not required to be shared by all.Even this "sharing" is loose since in our minds we might assume some attributes that CS never voiced. And as we have seen, we can ignore certain limits CS puts on his definition if it suits our purposes. A little hyperbole here, Straggler?I assert the meaning is subjective and sensitive to context, not that it is "utterly devoid" of any meaning within context. And, yes, I assert that definitions are so subjective as to be near useless outside a specific context.For your purposes of subjectively defining and applying "god" to assert that Christianity is patently polytheistic, I'm afraid this fourth option is not open to you.Try again:1. Your definition is wrong.
2. The application of your definition is wrong.
3. Christianity (along with the rest of the world) is wrong.

Or, did I invent an absurd scenario by which to illustrate the subjective nature of the question? So if Carol's divine spirit just permeates the Universe and binds all life and all things in a shared experience in common existence, but does not manifest as some kind of personified Sky Daddy or ruler over some earthly or supernatural realm then Carol is not a theist? There may be some overlap in concept with most here at EvC but this is one of those "Mixed/Unknown" communities I spoke of in my prior message. Too many unknowns thus too much subjectivity to say we all have the same common shared conception. Can your own small-g god concept envelope Carol's God without the sky daddy aspect? Does not appear so.Carol is free to define her God in her own way and is therefore allowed to define the small-g god definition to include her theology.Context is key.By your definition Carol is an atheist. But not by her own.This small-g god definition is subjective, open to manipulation for any specific purpose.Christianity is, by definition and by practice, monotheistic. So say its practitioners and so says the rest of the world.
If you care to manipulate the definition of god in such a way as to make Christianity appear polytheistic then so be it. The rest of the world will disagree with either the definition or its application.Edited by AZPaul3, : Changed the message then changed my mind. No edit.