Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Well as radical as this suggestion is - You could just clearly list these much referenced but still unknown criteria?What possible reason do you have for being so evasive? - Do you fear that by clearly stating the conceptual criteria by which you deem something worthy of the term god you might cite some criteria that we could all commonly identify as being associated with godliness? Thus refuting your position that no common conceptual meaning at all can possibly be found?Just clearly list these criteria. Please. Pretty please. With knobs on. I have. And I see talk about "nouns" that could not possibly apply to recognising gods that predate written historical records. I see talk of "tiers" that could not possibly apply if the culture in question believed in only one supernatural entity. And I see no conceptual criteria that could possibly be used for denying that a single specific entity (e.g. me) is a god beyond the idea that somebody needs to believe that said entity is a god. Which is quite patently a false criteria given that in the unlikley event that said entity actually is a god it inarguably remains a god regardless of what anyone does or does not believe.But if anyone else can clarify what you mean beyond these obviously flawed criteria (as per the much vaunted Message 198 post) I would be delighted to hear from them.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can Bob, by any common conceptual meaning of the terms involved, legitimately call himself an atheist or not?Are anthropologists able to apply common conceptual meaning in order to recognise theistic cultures and the gods associated with these cultures without necessarily breaking into absolute anarchy as they all try and apply their own dispirate and incompatible subjective criteria? That isn't what I said now is it? I said that to qualify as a god it needs to be be able to exert it's conscious will. As opposed to being some sort ethereal force that lacks conscious will. Nobody mentioned anything about "Sky Daddy" except you. Well actually the Catholic worship of saints and Mary is questioned by many as being polytheistic in practise. I am hardly the first to suggest this.And the belief in Satan as a powerful supernatural entity whom many Christians deeply fear the influence and worship of has been recognised in this very thread as indicative of polytheism on the part of many Christians.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

* sighs * I have done my best. Perhaps you could help me out here. What, in your opinion, would be a non-"evasive", non-"oblique" way of telling you that my criteria for identifying gods are contained in post #198, the one entitled "God-Spotting"? Only saying so in so many words seems to be about as un-"evasive" and un-"oblique" as language is capable of.

You could answer the question I have repeatedly asked you throughout this thread, and which you claim to have answered already, by completing the following:"Straggler you are quite clearly NOT a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:

Etc.

Straggler you are quite clearly NOT a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the criteria set out in post #198, the one entitled "God-Spotting".

Which are.........?The evasion continues......Seriously - Would it not just be easier to list these criteria rather than engage in this ridiculous charade of indignation any further? If anyone else can answer the above question by listing Dr A's criteria based on his "God Spotting" post- Please do.Here is the link - Message 198

Which are the criteria set out in post #198, the one entitled God-Spotting. Would you please suggest a non-"evasive" way to tell you that my criteria for identifying a god are contained in post #198, the one entitled "God-Spotting"?When I tell you this in so many words some eight or nine times (I've lost count) you complain that this is "evasive" and "oblique". And yet I can't think of a plainer way to convey this information to you. I have given my criteria in post #198, the one entitled "God-Spotting".And I like to think that I'm not so much engaging with your ridiculous charade of indignation as mocking it. Rather than waiting for someone else to quote post #198, you could always quote it yourself.

As a self declared atheist you must have some conceptual idea of what it is you claim not to believe in.Is the answer to this in Message 198 as well? I have told you how. List the criteria. Are you mentally incapable of seperating the reasoning and argumentation related to these criteria from the actual criteria themselves? In the name of clarity can you just filter out all else and list the criteria that pertain to the question that you claim to have already answered:"Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:

Dr A writes:

​

I have given my criteria in post #198, the one entitled "God-Spotting".

​

In the name of clarity can you just filter out all else and list the criteria that pertain to the question that you claim to have already answered:

​

"Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:

​

Dr A writes:

​

When I tell you this in so many words some eight or nine times (I've lost count) you complain that this is "evasive" and "oblique".

​

If you want to avoid accusations of evasivness and obliqueness simply filter out all else and list the criteria that pertain to the question that you claim to have already answered:

​

"Straggler you are quite clearly NOT actually a god whatever label you apply to yourself because you do not meet the following criteria:

​

Dr A writes:

​

And I like to think that I'm not so much engaging with your ridiculous charade of indignation as mocking it.

​

Your preferred form of evasion involves mockery. But it remains evasion whatever else it entails.

​

Dr A writes:

​

Rather than waiting for someone else to quote post #198, you could always quote it yourself.

​

Everytime I have made any comment pertaining to what I think your much publicised "God Spotting" post says about "tiers" or "nouns" you have simply replied with an unedifying "No".

​

Thus my ongoing quest to overcome your ambiguity continues.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

His criterion seems clear to me. It's the same one I articulated back in Message 124 of this joke of a thread. Here it comes,..... ready?A being is a god if a religion calls that being a god.I'm hard pressed to see how this could be any simpler.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Bob believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who demands respect and adulation in order to appease his monumental wrath. Bob refuses to label this being as a god and instead refers to said entity as a glod.Can Bob legitimately call himself an atheist? Says the man who vehemently denies that the Trinity is one God despite Christian religious beliefs clearly telling him otherwise.........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why should anybody even care?

Jess Straggler. Seems important to him.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Nah. Not in any way that actually means anythingSee Message 300

Well why did you care enough to reply? Why does anyone "care" about most of the topics debated here at EvC?I suspect that most here take part for reasons that amount to little more than intellectual masturbation with some perfectly valid sprinkles on top.But maybe this is better discussed here - Why do you post here?Edited by Straggler, : I am too blind to spell masturbation correctly Years of self abuse taking it's toll.

Insufficient information to answer the question. That's not a criteria question, that's a counting question. They can call anything they like a god, but they redefine three to equal one.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate