Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Hi, Straggler. You must be a true god, then: I doubted you, and we got a dawnish thunderstorm here in Kentucky.Admittedly, it was kind of a puny, weaksauce thunderstorm, but it did have some thunderbolts in it.Besides, I didn't say I thought you were a particularly powerful god, so it still fits.All hail, Straggler, the Part-mighty!Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi, Straggler. Obviously, the clarity in the concept of god suffers from the long evolution of human opinion on the matter, so it’s always going to be muddy waters.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. Of course, everybody knows that "worship" is as vague and subjective a term as "god"; but it always involves acknowledgement and admiration of supernatural power and either a placation, appeasement or submissiveness to the deity in question. So, I’ll use the term worship to mean praise for, placation or appeasement of, and/or submitting to the supernatural powers of a certain being.Since Christians do not worship (i.e., praise, placate, appease or submit to the powers of) Satan, it is not appropriate to view Satan as a god.On the other hand, polytheistic religions with a rough equivalent of Satan actually do worship (i.e., appease or submit to) their equivalent of Satan. So, it is appropriate to view these beings as gods.Likewise, polytheists worship different beings for different situations (e.g., Aphrodite in matters of love and Demeter in matters of agriculture); whereas there is only one entity for Christians to worship in all cases.If you chose to placate, appease or submit to a pencil, then it would be appropriate to call the pencil your god. But, if all you do is say that pencils are your gods, then pencils do not really meet the objective criteria of godliness, and you don’t really meet the objective criteria for a theist.Some types of Christians pray to saints or angels on their own behalf, and I suppose you could make a case for this being some form of worship. But, the act in this case is actually a request for the individual being to appease or placate the actual god on one’s behalf; so this is, at best, a grey area.Edited by Bluejay, : singular for "criteria."Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi, Straggler. What about the answer I provided in my last post made you decide to ignore it?Edited by Bluejay, : I almost apologized for being rude: but then I remembered who I was responding to, and decided that it probably wouldn't really bother you.

---

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

Hi, Prodigy.If you like a message, you can just give it a good rating by clicking "4" or "5" on the left-hand panel: there's no need to post a new message each time you see a message you like.Edited by Bluejay, : subtitleEdited by Bluejay, : typo tic

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

Hi, Straggler. 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?----- 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.----- 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?----- 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.----- 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.----- Why should it be? Do other religions regard this as sufficient criteria to call something a god? If so, which religions?----- 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.----- 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.

Hi, Straggler.How you put together your posts so quickly is a mystery that will always escape me. 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.----- 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.----- 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?----- 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.----- 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, : emphasesEdited by Bluejay, : "allegedly"Edited by Bluejay, : "presented as" twice in one sentence

---

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

Hi, Straggler.At the risk of making this personal, I get the feeling that, if you’re interested enough in a subject to start a thread about it, you’ve already made up your mind about it, and just want to start a thread for the chance to tear into people who disagree with you. And my criterion, for the third time now, is not that somebody actually needs to worship them: it’s that people within the religion in question believe that worshiping them will serve the intended practical or spiritual purpose.If the people within the religion in question are hypothetical, then so be it.----- Since IPUism is a hypothetical religion, it must have hypothetical believers. It certainly is presented as though it has hypothetical followers.And, hypothetical believers still count toward conceptual definitions.----- Your position was originally that Christianity is unwittingly polytheistic. Now, your position seems to be that many Christians are unwittingly polytheistic. It seems like you have very strongly altered your position, which, if true, would mean that you have tacitly admitted that your original argument was wrong.Christianity is such a big tent that you could probably make any number of seemingly wild claims, and you’ll very likely find a subset of Christianity whose beliefs are reasonably approximated by your claims.If that’s the point you want to be right about, then I’ll gladly let you have it. I never intended to be arguing that no Christians’ beliefs could be regarded as polytheistic anyway; though it seems that, in your eyes, this is exactly what I’ve been doing.Certainly, there are many flavors of Christianity that believe in the efficacy and reality of such things as witchcraft and Satan worship, and these could be accurately regarded as polytheistic from the definition I've set forth; but there are equally as many that dismiss these ideas as superstition, and these cannot be accurately regarded as polytheistic.

---

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