|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Christianity Polytheistic? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Straggler writes: Which is of course a way of you avoiding the question and yet another way for you to avoid the fact that by any objective definition of the concept of Satan does indeed qualify as a god. Your comrades have told you that you're wrong in your line of reasoning. Your opponents have told you the same. The only one that's left to tell you you're wrong is...you.
So what are the recognisable criteria for objectively identifying god concepts regardless of language, culture or religious specifics? After listening to my answer, do ask people of other regions as well. IOW, my answer is NOT a objective, universal set of criteria. Since you've taken up a next to impossible task ( i.e objectively, universally defining god), it is in your best interest to speak to people of differnet religions and come up with a speculative, partially correct set of criteria. Here goes: SupernaturalBenevolent Powerful (or miracle-working...that works too) Note: This isn't the set of criteria for defining God according to Christianity. You asked for some recognizable criteria likely to be present regardless of culture, language or religious specifics. Edited by Dr. Sing, : formatting Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
subbie writes: Right. Except that it doesn't. It also recognizes Jesus and the holy spirit as god as well. Right. Except, they're all of the same substance and always function as a single unit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
"Benevolent" in particular seems to be your own personal attempt to subjectively exclude Satan whilst including your own god. But it excludes many many other gods that other cultures have and do believe to be gods. So, do you have a problem with that? I never told you that those three criteria are hard and fast rules that every god fits. I only said that these are the basic criteria that majority of theists probably will agree on when defingin god. Are there exceptions like Kali? Of course. This is where you leave the general arena and enter into the specifics of Hindusim to find out how it defines gods--and its definition is pretty poorly developed...so guess what, Kali qualifies for god. The god of destruction. When you come out of the arena of Hinduism, and enter into monotheistic religions, you'll find that their definitions are a lot more refined and therefore allow for only one God. You are the first and only person I've met who seems to have a preference (atleast a hypothetical one) for wicked deities. Normal people want to worship good gods....you know, favorable ones. And yet, you seem to to be taken aback when I include the criterion, benevolent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Coragyps writes: Anticipating an answer from Doc S: "Oh, of course JHC was human! I meant substance, not that shabby-ass unitalicized substance!" Doc S, see if you can do better........ I don't get what you're saying. If it was important, I'm sure you'll further explain it to me. If not, we'll just ignore it...
subbie writes: So when Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," he was talking to himself, pleading with himself, trying to talk himself into forgiving those who crucified him? Sure, makes perfect sense. Wow, you're the first person I met to whom the Trinity makes good sense? I don't fully understand it. I believe it. You might not want to believe it...and you have your freedom to disbelieve it, ridicule it, whatever.
Ah. So then Jesus wasn't in human form. Or, are all three human? So physical state = composition? One and the same thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
So a believer in a different religion might call Satan god. That's really quite irrelevant to what Christians think. Straggler writes: Why does it matter what Chrsitians assert? Christians also insist that there trinity is one god. But you don't have any problem telling they are wrong on that. So why do you suddenly give them last word on whether or not Satan qualifies as a god concept? Yeah, they don't have a problem telling us we're wrong about the Trnity being one God because they think our reasoning is messed up. They are not trying to manipulate our definitions, like you are....and that too, using Greek Mythology's definitions of all things. 1+1+1=3 has got to be universally true , yes? (unlike the definition of god which varies (and is allowed to) from religion to religion, Straggler). No matter what corner of the planet you're on, what ethnicity you belong to, what profession you're in, what culture yours is...3 entities are 3 entities. This truth does not vary and is NOT allowed to vary...even if you're Christian. This is the point atheists are trying to make to us. Its a matter of reasoning. I can see why such an argument is valid. But your equivocation is simply a huge confusion party.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Straggler writes: Frankly Dr Sing you have summed up the contradictory nature of the Christian position on this better than I ever could:
Dr Sing writes: 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. So Satan is excluded from this general concept of god because the specific Christian doctrine has declared itself to be monotheistic. That makes sense - not. When objectively examining a culture or religion which concept of god would an anthropologist apply? The "general concept" or the Christian one? And what does this "general concept" of god consist of? I'm no anthropologist. So, I can't give you a professional answer. I can tell you what I would do though. When perusing a religion, I would apply the defintion of god that the particular religion in question has in its setup. I would not go around apply Greek mythology's god concept to Hinduism in order to identify whether or not Shiva or Saraswati qualify for god. I would look at the list of the bilions of gods in hinduism and think, ah...so these are what are "gods" in Hinduism. Next, I go on to Christianity and do the same. (Except we have onyl one person on the list). If you are trying to amalgamate a general god concept by pick and choosing the most commonly recurring god attributes from different religions and say that there's no reason why satan doesn't fit your amalgamation---that strikesm e as inaccurate reasoning. Thats is not how things work in religion. As others have pointed out and as I have said right in the beginning--- in religion, people don't have a pre-made mould that their god fits into. It, rather, works the other way round. People subscribe to a religion and accept as god whoever that religion (or scripture) proclaims to be god. Be it 3 billion gods and godesses, as in hinduism....or 1 God, as in Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pauline Member (Idle past 3767 days) Posts: 283 Joined: |
Nobody is applying one religions definition of god to another religion no matter how many times you stupidly assert this to be the case. So do even your own atheist chums that assert what I do also look stupid to you?
I am applying the same religion-independent concept of gods that we all apply... and what is that? Could you flesh this out please?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024