Is Christianity Polytheistic?

You take the, for example, Greek concept of what constitutes a God, and apply it to Satan in the christian worldview to declare that he should be considered a God as well.But I could just as well apply the christian concept of what constitutes a God, and then apply it to greek mythology, and declare that (since none pass the 'test) that it is therefore a non-theistic (atheist?) belief.I think if you think about it, you will realize that you are in fact equivocating the word 'god', and this is why your conclusion is false.AbE To explain clearly the equivocation, you are equivocating the greek 'pagan' definition of God with the christian definition of God, in order to claim christianity should view satan is a godEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.

See Dr.A response. For the christian definition of God, refer to theology books I guess.But this doesn't render the word theism useless, theism is a descriptive term for a worldview where the term 'god' is applied to something.Think about it, suppose I created a religion in which cats would be considered divine. Does that make you, who believes cat exists, to suddenly become a theist ? Obviously not, your worldview remains atheistic because you continue tu not view cats as gods. (I presuppose you are atheist, telle me if I'm mistaken)In the same way, the christian worldview does not consider satan to be a god, and therefore remains monotheistic (the trinity is another issue to discuss) even though satan would qualify as a god in another wordlview.

But I'm not interested in discussing for a simple reason: it won't amount to anything.Because whenever the concept of trinity is explained with more complexity beyond the basic 1+1+1=3, atheist will discard it as being ''mental gymnastics''. But of course, this simplistic view is a strawman of the actual thing, because the trinity concept isn't simple, it's complex. But it's understandable when you put the time and good will to understand it.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I have defined the word ''theism'' in message no39 as a descriptive term for a worldview in which the term 'god' is applied to something. So in your hypothetical scenario, yes theism would describe your worldview. Yes they are theists, because they apply the word 'god' to something. If they are right or wrong in doing so is irrelevant for them being theists.I understand your logic, but it is flawed because you equivocate as I stated in my first message.Please stop repeating the same reasoning over and over again, it won't make it right. Everybody here has being trying to tell you as clearly as possible why it is flawed.AbE I don't use the argument you are referring to (god exists because people in ancient times believed in god(s))Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I am saying each worldview has it's own criterias. But their are no universal criteria(s) that every god in every theistic worldview must have in order to be theistic. The only thing a worldview needs is to ascribe the term 'god' to something. The christian worldview has it's own personnal definition of god that it uses. That is why it is monotheistic.Now if for some odd reason we would apply a hindu definition of god into the christian worldview, than it would be polytheistic. But that's a rather pointless exercise. No, it means that the christian god is not a god for you, he's just a ...thing.However, I remain a theist because I still hold a theistic worldview. No matter what view you hold of my god it does not matter. Some criteria's appear universal because they naturally come with the idea of 'religious experience', such as that the god in question usually has a supernatural side. However, they are not intrinsically universal as I said earlier.

The subject at the time was about children indoctrination, not about the existence of God. So I did not make the argument 'to prove God's existence' you are talking about.As to what definition of 'god' was used, it was in a more general manner. I don't know to explicit this, but take this example (from the study in question):Dr. Barrett: "If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."Dr. Barrett: "If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in a theistic worldview".I hope it's clear. (cause I don't feel it is)

You do realize you are taking quotes from a conversation that is almost a year old and in a vastly different context.But I see where you make an error: in this thread, we are speaking theoretically about theism and what limits the use of the word God. I hve been saying, that in theory, nothing prevents anything from being anyone's god and making him a theist.Now the other year old thread is different, it is a practical research. If you have taken the time to look into the study, you will notice that they narrowed the theoretical use of the word god to have criteria's such as 'supernatural' and 'creator', etc. implicitly attached to it. Yeah well I rather think that the questions the study asked the children naturally narrowed the word 'god' from it's general manner to 'supernatural' and 'creator'

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

You and I have both seen Christians here repeatedly cite widespread belief in gods as some sort of evidence for the actual existence of god.

---

You are changing the goalpost, this was precisely the argument you said yo usaw christians use, and this is the argument I said I never used.It is different from citing the widespread belief in god as evidence for the innate nature of religiousness/theistic beliefs over it being simple an indoctrinated behavior. (remember onifre was saying children were born atheists)