Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 9 of 375 (563702)
06-06-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
06-06-2010 6:41 AM


Re: Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Straggler writes:
Biblical Christianity is monotheistic. Right? One single god?
I say not. For example in what sense is Satan less of a god than Apollo or Thor? In what sense is archangel Gabriel any less of a god than Mercury or Dionysius? The bible contains a whole host of angels, demons and supernatural characters that are gods in all but name and which in other mythologies would be given that title.
The argument is flawed because you're applying one religion's standard of God to another religion's. Let me illustrate. I, as a Christian, could argue that the majority of greek deities do not qualify for God because by my defintion God does not marry or procreate...I could go on. Someone who believes in the 12 Olympian Gods would write my argument off because he disagrees with me on the definition of God.
The bible contains a whole host of angels, demons and supernatural characters that are gods in all but name and which in other mythologies would be given that title.
Greek style gods, maybe. But that hardly is an argument for their deity as the Bible defines deity.
To accept Apollo as an example of a god concept in a polytheistic belief system but to deny that the concept of Satan in biblical Christianity is anything other than the same is just equivocation.
Isn't it?
Christianity does not define God with the same qualifiers as other religions do. The qualifier that is my case in point is, Holy. Holy meaning, of a single, unreproducible, unique essence. God is one category whose entirety is occupied by YHWH alone. Does God create superhuman beings like satan? Sure. Do they qualify for God? No. There lacks the perfection that we expect of God as the Bible defines Him, in satan or Michael or Gabriel or Paul or Barnabas or anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 3:51 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 06-06-2010 3:55 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 06-06-2010 4:02 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 06-06-2010 4:13 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 14 of 375 (563721)
06-06-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
06-06-2010 3:51 PM


Re: Is Christianity Polytheistic?
No. Which definition of God came first or which is more intrinsically superior is not the question. Whether we can apply one religion's definitions to another successfully is the question, yes?
And Larni....
What you seem to be saying is that Yahweh is a 'bigger' god than Apollo and this means that 'smaller' gods are not actually god.
I can't see how you can claim that Apollo is not a god because he is not as 'big' as Yahweh.
You can't see because I never claimed anything about big or small Gods. What I was trying to put across was, in Christianity, the totality of everything perfect is termed as God and the commonly held belief is that only one Being is written about who claims to have all said perfect qualities. God is not an adjective with degrees of comparison, good-better-best, powerful-more powerful-most powerful etc, in Christianity that is. What we think incomporable to anything known or unknown, that we call God....not just about any supernatural creature
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 3:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 4:10 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 17 of 375 (563730)
06-06-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
06-06-2010 4:10 PM


Re: Is Christianity Polytheistic?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 4:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 4:55 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 18 of 375 (563731)
06-06-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Larni
06-06-2010 4:13 PM


Re: Is Christianity Polytheistic?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 06-06-2010 4:13 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Larni, posted 06-06-2010 5:00 PM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 21 of 375 (563742)
06-06-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
06-06-2010 4:55 PM


Re: Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Dr Sing writes:
Whether we can apply one religion's definitions to another successfully is the question, yes?
Straggler writes:
Are Hindus atheists?
dr Sing writes:
No.
Straggler writes:
So then you accept the Hindu concept of god as meeting your requirement of that which you would call god?
I thought we called those atheists who do not believe in the concept of God. Hindus clearly believe in a concept of God. Therefore they are not atheists. You can hardly take this to mean that my concept of God and their is one and the same?
Larnie writes:
Who's son was he then? I was bought up in a CoE school and I definitely remember Jesus being Yahweh's son.
No one's biological son.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 4:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 5:24 PM Pauline has replied
 Message 83 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2010 8:59 AM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 34 of 375 (563775)
06-06-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
06-06-2010 5:24 PM


When man creates God in his own image...
Straggler writes:
They don't have to be the same to both qualify as god concepts do they.
I'm all for them qualifying as "god concepts" within the boundaries of Hinduism. What I'm not for is applying Hinduism's or Greek mythology's logic to Christianity and pronouncing angels and other superhuman beings as lesser gods or smaller gods than YHWH. Like you imagine, it is most probable that a Hindu would be prone to label satan an evil god, a god nonetheless. However, this does not fit within Christianity because it teaches that God is one. I think we have to go back to where different religions get their conceptions of God from. Just take Hinduism for example, a few gods in it are mere personifications of nature. Ganga, for example is a river in India and yet it is personified as a goddess. The gods Agni, Vayu and Surya are personifications of fire, air and sun respectively. Hanuman the monkey god, is a devotee of Rama (a bigger god) but a god nonetheless. It even elevates certain animals to divine status i.e animals that provide transportation for the gods. All this to say that Hinduism appears to derive its its deities from nature for the most part. However, Christianity's approach to defining god is different (from Hinduism at least). We take the Bible and believe the person who claims to be God in it is the definition of God. IOW, we have no pre-conceived prescriptive idea for God and YHWH fits it; all we know about God is what has been revealed to us in the Bible. We say, the YHWH of the Bible is "God" as we understand. So here you have these two polar opposite conceptions of God that you're trying to mix and match. Doesn't work.
Given that you accept that the Hindu god Lakshmi qualifies as meeting your requirement to be called a "god" can you tell me in what way Satan does not also qualify as a god?
First of all, I have no personal requirements of God. Like I said, I have no self-made mould that YHWH perfectly fits into and voila!, becomes my God, no.
Second, I never said Lakshmi qualifies for "God" as I, a Christian, would accept. Within the realm of Hindusim, Lakshmi is surely a goddess (as hindusim defines her)...a very prominent one that too. But not within Christianity's worldview. She is not God. God is only one, the most holy YHWH. The "problem" with religion is this, different definitions and ideas...which when people try to mix and match, they complicate lives even more than they already are.
What are the criteria for being accepted as worthy of the term "god"?
I think that any such being to whom we can attribute these pre-conceived ideas is most probably not God.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 5:24 PM Straggler has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 35 of 375 (563780)
06-06-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by subbie
06-06-2010 7:32 PM


Re: Godly Criteria
5er Subbie, exactly what I was trying to convey.
I think Straggler is failing to realize that different religions have different definitions of god and applying Hinduism's logic in an attempt to provide satan with deity status while also maintaining fundamental Biblical principles is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by subbie, posted 06-06-2010 7:32 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 9:01 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 36 of 375 (563785)
06-06-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Straggler
06-06-2010 6:31 PM


Straggler writes:
If what you say is true Christians would consider Muslims, Hindus et al to be atheists. As the Christians would consider all those others as not believing in god(s).
No?
No.
Its kind of sad that I have to remind you (assuming you're one, Straggler) of the definition of your own status. Atheists are people who choose not to believe in the concept of God most often for lack of empirical evidence (not ruling out other reasons though), yes? This is different from choosing to believe a god concept. Which Hindus do. Now to answer your question pretty bluntly, I would say that a Christian would view people of other religions as worshiping false gods i.e imposters that they themselves have created i.e what they think is god. Vice versa with what a hindu or muslim might think of a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:31 PM Straggler has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 37 of 375 (563788)
06-06-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
06-06-2010 6:58 PM


Re: Godly Criteria
Gahh, I feel so bad for posting post after another. I'll stop with this one for now.
Quotes by Straggler.
But if Hindus qualify as theists they must believe in gods.
Yes.
If Hindu gods qualify as gods...
To whom? is the question. To Muslims? No. To Christians? No. To certain other religions? Maybe.
...then in what sense does satan not [qualify for god]? Without some serious equivocation?
Again, to whom? To a hindu? or To a Christian? Or to everybody?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 06-06-2010 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 1:05 PM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 41 of 375 (563818)
06-06-2010 10:16 PM


Wishing you all the best Slevesque. What theologians have failed to comprehend throughout ages despite hours of pouring over it, is now up to you to clarify to our atheist friends here. .....uhh, on a internet forum.

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 78 of 375 (564150)
06-08-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
06-07-2010 9:01 PM


Re: Godly Criteria
Straggler writes:
Straggler is well aware that different religions define gods differently.
Then why did he say this:
Straggler writes:
For example in what sense is Satan less of a god than Apollo or Thor? In what sense is archangel Gabriel any less of a god than Mercury or Dionysius? The bible contains a whole host of angels, demons and supernatural characters that are gods in all but name and which in other mythologies would be given that title.
Doesn't Straggler see that because Greek Mythology defines god differently from Biblical Christianity (as per your own admission in the first quote), it is blatantly wrong to use your false logic to conclude that satan is a god in Christianity?
Straggler writes:
How many times have you seen believers here at EvC cite widespread belief in gods as some sort of evidence for the actual existence of gods?
It seems to me that Christians want to be able to say that the majority of humanity believes in god whilst simultaneously defining god such that it excludes everyone but them.
This is blatantly inconsistent.
Alright, this type of thing is getting to be so common that it deserves a name now. Something to the effect of "atheists' gross misunderstandings of theistic beliefs/ideas produce horribly wrong conclusions". Preferably something more terse than that.
We don't say that the fact that majority of people believe in some sort of god IS evidence of the biblical God's existence. We only say that, majority of the people sense the same thing---the need for a supernatural being (not a specific one mind you, just some supernatural being). This widespread need could possibly be an indication that human beings, unless they resist their inner voice, intrinsically know/feel the presence of god. Whether that god is YHWH or someone else...is not the point here. People follow this inner voice of theirs and eventually ascribe to some religion or the other. The fact that majority of people even feel like there should be some sort of supernatural superpower (whoever it may be) is the point here.
Straggler writes:
If you are happy that simply defining myself as god or worshiping bog standard pencils as defined godly entities qualifies as a genuine form of theism then fair enough.
I suspect that most believers have more stringent criteria for that which would qualify as a "god" even if it does not meet their narrow religious view of the "one true god".
It is those generic criteria I was getting at. It is those generic criteria that Satan (I am sure) will meet and on which the equivocation will thus be required.
You're straggling farther and farther away, Straggler.
First you start out by saying that satan should qualify as god, as per......well, greek mythology and Hinduism's definitions of god. When corrected, you openly admit that you understand that different religions define god differently. However you fail to apply what you proclaim i.e different definitions of god when dealing with different religions. And now you're jollily confusing yourself between atheism and theism saying that according to theists of one particular religion, EVERYONE else (that doesn't subscribe to said religion) automatically becomes a atheist even though you define an atheist as someone who refuses to believe in the concept of god. Now you come to the main point which is: What general criteria do theists expect in a god? There is danger in trygin to answer this question because the answer can take you back to square one: hypothetically, you might find some hindus who say that according to them, a god is 1. superhuman 2. extremely powerful. Does satan qualify? Yes. Alternately, you might find some Christians who say that a god can never be evil. Does satan now qualify? No. There is not concrete set of criteria that ALL theists of ALL religions agree on to define god. However, I think, if you took a general survey (superficial one, not going into deep questions), the top three criteria you're most likely to get are:
1. Omnipotent: Nobody wants a god who can't do everything.
2. Sovereign: Nobody wants a god who can do everything but is subject to someone else
3. Personal: Nobody wants a god who can do everything, is not subject to anyone, yes doesn't so anything for THEM.
I think a close contender for num.3 would be 'loving'. (and this is love that encompasses all other virtues like mercy, grace etc): Nobody would want a god who can do everything, is not subject to anyone, is able to do anything for them, but is not enough/always motivated to keep doing things for them.
BTW, since a few of you are self-proclaiming deity of yourselves (or given a chance would)...do you fit the minimum expectations of god?
I think it gets extremely ridiculous when humans start playing around with the concept of God......ohh, not like God is someone to be revered, is He? Nah, not really.....wow.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : formatting etc
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : for the last time, formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 06-07-2010 9:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 06-09-2010 11:05 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 84 of 375 (564250)
06-09-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Coragyps
06-09-2010 8:59 AM


Re: Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Cor writes:
Mary didn't have a baby?
It wasn't Joseph's baby, if you know what I mean. Mary was only a means of delivering a already existing person. Birthing his physical existence i.e adding a physical dimension to his already existent supernatural dimension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Coragyps, posted 06-09-2010 8:59 AM Coragyps has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 92 of 375 (564401)
06-10-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by slevesque
06-09-2010 10:11 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
Slevesque writes:
I am starting to doubt that you have an accurate comprehension of what is equivocation. Equivocation is not having a word have different meanings. It is using a meaning in the wrong context as to make your point.
When I am talking about theism in general, I use a more general definition of god. When I talk about the christian worldview, I use the christian definition. When I talk about the hindu worldview, I use the hindu definition.
You, on the other hand, used the greek definition of god in the christian worldview to declare satan should be considered a 'god'. That is equivocation.
^ That is as clear as anything could be. Well done, Slev.
Straggler, if you continue to beat the dead horse even after this...guess what, we'll say the same thing. However, it will be proven that you are either incapable of understanding theistic ideas or intentionally blind yourself from understanding them for reaosns only you know. Pick one.
As per your rant...here's my succinct statment that you so wanted to hear:
You writes:
The point is that one cannot simultaneously advocate the widespread cultural belief in gods as evidence favouring the theistic position whilst simultaneously asserting that Christianlty is monotheistic because nothing but the narrow Christian version of God qualifies for use of the term god.
If someon is doing that--then obviously, they are have problems.
Most of the cultures being referred to don’t speak English and thus don’t use the term god at all
So language defiens ideas as opposed to ideas define language? What nonsense are you talking, Straggler? I have hindu, muslim, buddhist, and even parsi friends who have a accruate, well defined defition of god....just it would be in a diffetenrt language. But the concept is the same.
you writes:
So when Christians say that other cultures believe in gods what do they mean?
They mean that theists of other cultures all ascribe the concept of supernatural soverignity/deity to
"someone" (could be Vishnu, could be Satya Sai Baba, could be....pencils)
How is Satan discluded from that definition of "god
Here's your answer. Let's pose the same question to a bunch of theists of different religions (and disclaimer: they do not agree on the defintion og "God"):
Hindu: Satan is a powerful,evil god who is the archenemy of YHWH
Muslim: Satan is a false prophet
Christian: Satan was the most powerful angel befoe he sinned and following his fall, he became God's enemy or the devil. He still retains most of his powers that come from being an angel but is ultimatley doomed to destruction.
Budhhist: Satan is a person with very bad intentions whose example is written in the Scriptures so that we strive not to have the same qualities he does.
Are we atleast vaguely seeing the point?
Yes I am.
Then you're hallucinating.
Then let them say that.
Said it. Saying it again, in case you were closing your mind the last time, widepsred belief in god concepts is not evidence for the existence of God. It might be an indication of a commonly recurring feeling of awe or worship which people ascribe to someone or something and term the same as "god."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by slevesque, posted 06-09-2010 10:11 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 9:57 AM Pauline has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 100 of 375 (564449)
06-10-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
06-10-2010 4:12 PM


Re: Equivocations and Contradictions
Slevesque writes:
I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionary theory. The belief in a particular God/Gods is of course acquired knowledge though. Message 75
Slevesque writes:
Well the main point is just the title: Children are born believers in God academic claims Message 92
Slevesque writes:
What I have claimed is at the very least probable, since why then would every culture around the world have the concept of God/Gods ? Message 84
Straggler writes:
So is Slevesque talking about the Christian God in these examples? If not what concept of god is he talking about? And why would Satan be discluded from that?
Slevesque is not talking about the Bible God or YHWH. He is referring to the general concept of god. And for the zillionth time, satan is excluded because Christianity is a monotheistic religion which defines God as one person or one person as God--YHWH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:48 PM Pauline has not replied
 Message 119 by subbie, posted 06-10-2010 8:21 PM Pauline has replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 101 of 375 (564450)
06-10-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
06-10-2010 4:18 PM


Re: The real equivocation
Question: If someone believes in the existence of Satan but denies the existence of the Christian God, Jesus or any other supernatural entities do they qualify as a theist?
Within the domain of Christianity, the existence of satan (and indeed, everything else) is tied with the existence of God. So hypothetically, if someone was thinking was you just said, I would think he's out of his mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 4:36 PM Pauline has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024