NationStates Jolt Archive

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

Oooh a religion thread.

*awaits Catholic bashing*

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html?q=John#top)

Oooh a religion thread.

1) Oooh a troll.

2) This is not a bash/justifiy religion, but about its classification.

1) Oooh a troll.

2) This is not a bash/justifiy religion, but about its classification.

That may be your intention, but it soon won't be. Got a goat because I am feeling kind of peckish?

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

clearly insane. especially since the three are not mere aspects but separate entities that are alleged to have independently acted and conversed with the others.

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html?q=John#top)

I agree.

*awaits Catholic bashing*

poor catholics, always getting the short end of the preteen

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

No.
It's the Imperial we, as in Queen Victoria saying, "WE are not amused." Authority that speaks for the whole.

"No other gods before me," means that there is only one big Kahuna, and the rest of the gods, being false gods, should not be worshipped.

(Note this is only explaining what is meant by the terms; not the validity of claiming that all other religions are false.)

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html?q=John#top)

that explains the "we" and "us" for those that believe in the trinity, but not for those who don't follow that version of christianity. But even if they all followed the trinity, it still leaves the power attributed to the devil today.

That may be your intention, but it soon won't be. Got a goat because I am feeling kind of peckish?

sorry, no goats.

The old books show traces of ancient Hebrew mythology, a polytheistic religion.

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.

the adversary certainly is some sort of deity. along with the rest of the heavenly hosts. and then there is that whole saints and mary stuff...

The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.

well, el was the chief god of a number of pantheons in the region. they seem to have decided at some point that el was the god, not just the highest god.

monotheistic. Technically, the devil isn't a god. It was once an angel who was sent to hell for getting too greedy and making unreasonable demands. The devil is powerful, but not powerful enough to be a god. More like an uber super-super-super-super villain whose main job is to get your soul. I'm not too sure why. Probably makes the devil more powerful or something.

God's called God for a reason. God (or Allah. They're the same guy) is the sole monotheistic deity of the three Abrahamic religions.

I always thought the worship of various saints and angels and empowering them with various traits lent Christianity a distinctly polytheistic feel. Probably a holdover from the changes the faith went through to convert the Romans.

But even if they all followed the trinity, it still leaves the power attributed to the devil today.

...and the saints, don't forget saints...or angels....or the infallible pope.

I think Catholicism entails a certain suspension of the slightest amount of rationality and I think this is why 'Christianity' is a poor header for a discussion about religion - there's so many different kinds.

the adversary certainly is some sort of deity. along with the rest of the heavenly hosts. and then there is that whole saints and mary stuff...



well, el was the chief god of a number of pantheons in the region. they seem to have decided at some point that el was the god, not just the highest god.

I did a type of double standard (devil advocate i guess;)) I took today's version of the devil While ignoring today's version of God. While it is possible that God might have been the ruler of many Gods in the past (more like zues (sp?) than the beard huh?) Today he is thought of as the only god. While the devil used the be a tempter, a fallen angel who's only "power" was his ability the lie better than a lawyer, while today he has become a sort of mirrior image of god, complete with a "massiah" (anti-christ).

"No other gods before me," means that there is only one big Kahuna, and the rest of the gods, being false gods, should not be worshipped.

this actually is just an interpretation, and not really the most obvious one given what we know of the origins of the old testament books and the people who wrote them

The devil is powerful, but not powerful enough to be a god.

how powerful does one need to be in order to be a god?

I'd say if anything, Christianity, while monotheistic like Judaism and Islam, could be borderline atheistic... why? It denies the existence of other gods. John 1 being the case and point. All three are just one god away from being atheistic.

how powerful does one need to be in order to be a god?

Omnipotent. Though there is some claim for the devil to have said power, if he didn't then surely the kind loving all fuzzy bunnies God wouldn't let the big bad fuck with us poor mortals.

Unless god is a dick.

Omnipotent. Though there is some claim for the devil to have said power, if he didn't then surely the kind loving all fuzzy bunnies God wouldn't let the big bad fuck with us poor mortals.

Unless god is a dick.

Except he apparently does on occasion ... demonic possession and all

clearly insane. especially since the three are not mere aspects but separate entities that are alleged to have independently acted and conversed with the others.

Agreed case in point Jesus praying before his death and asking if he could be spared the trial ... kind of insane to pray to yourself

that explains the "we" and "us" for those that believe in the trinity, but not for those who don't follow that version of christianity. But even if they all followed the trinity, it still leaves the power attributed to the devil today.
The devil is not a god, he is not worshiped, nor is he as powerful as God, were he as powerful as God he wouldn't be restricted by God in the way he is.

Omnipotent. Though there is some claim for the devil to have said power, if he didn't then surely the kind loving all fuzzy bunnies God wouldn't let the big bad fuck with us poor mortals.

Unless god is a dick.

Omnipotentancy(sp?) of god is another argument all together.;)

The devil is not a god, he is not worshiped, nor is he as powerful as God, were he as powerful as God he wouldn't be restricted by God in the way he is.

Satanists warship the devil.

A lesser god is still a god.

Omnipotentancy(sp?) of god is another argument all together.;)

If it's not omnipotent, it's not a god.

If it's not omnipotent, it's not a god.

this is a nonstandard definition. hilariously, it's one that rules out not only almost every single god ever believed in, but also the god of the bible.

If it's not omnipotent, it's not a god.

Not really. before today's god there were lots for gods and goddesses who were not omnipotent, at least as far as my understanding of them goes. such as the greek gods.

Satanists warship the devil.

A lesser god is still a god.

no they don't. Satanists worship themselves.

no they don't. Satanists worship themselves.

Correct if I am wrong, but isn't one of their commandments something about thanking satan for what they have or they will lose it all or something like that?

I'm going to see if I can find their commandment now....:confused:

Correct if I am wrong, but isn't one of their commandments something about thanking satan for what they have or they will lose it all or something like that?

I'm going to see if I can find their commandment now....:confused:

uh.....no.

Satanism is a big joke on Christians, it's like self centered atheism with cool clothes and ceremony

uh.....no.

Satanism is a big joke on Christians, it's like self centered atheism with cool clothes and ceremony

I have known a few satanists none of them cared to play a "Joke" on Christianity nor were perticuarly intrested in what Christians thought about it.

Not really. before today's god there were lots for gods and goddesses who were not omnipotent, at least as far as my understanding of them goes. such as the greek gods.

I'm fairly sure the Greek and Roman gods were supposed to be omnipotent. The "Problem of Evil" dates back to Greek times. Reconciling the chaos and evil of the world with supposedly omnipotent and benevolent gods.

I figure it's far more likely that any god simply doesn't really care. I mean we'd be less than insects before a power like that. I can't imagine why they'd care, other than on a lark.

uh.....no.

Satanism is a big joke on Christians, it's like self centered atheism with cool clothes and ceremony

there are both kinds actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism


this is the closest i could find to the commandments thing: http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/COMMANDMENTS.html angelfire ftl

basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html?q=John#top)

Yet more evidence that Jim Carrey is god....:D

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/153/862510~Me-Myself-Irene-Posters.jpg
http://www.brucealmighty.com/images/hvsplash.jpg

The devil is not a god, he is not worshiped, nor is he as powerful as God, were he as powerful as God he wouldn't be restricted by God in the way he is.

an entity must be actively worshiped and equal in power to the highest god in a pantheon to be a god?

I'm fairly sure the Greek and Roman gods were supposed to be omnipotent.

really? what do you take omnipotence to entail?

an entity must be actively worshiped and equal in power to the highest god in a pantheon to be a god?

I don't know. I am not polytheistic. I can't apply their rules to my religion.

I'm fairly sure the Greek and Roman gods were supposed to be omnipotent. The "Problem of Evil" dates back to Greek times. Reconciling the chaos and evil of the world with supposedly omnipotent and benevolent gods.

I figure it's far more likely that any god simply doesn't really care. I mean we'd be less than insects before a power like that. I can't imagine why they'd care, other than on a lark.

Not all of the gods were all powerful, wasn't there infighting in the myths of the gods? someone had the lose and thus not be all powerful.

then there were the fates, who even the highest god had to see in order to see the future (which they were never inclined to tell).....or were they roman?


either way if you are not all powerful and/or not all knowing you are not omnipotent.

I don't know. I am not polytheistic. I can't apply their rules to my religion.

these aren't 'their rules'. i'm getting at a system of general rules for talking about gods - yours and theirs. i assume you have at one point or another used the terms 'greek gods' or 'norse gods', so how do you identify entities to place in such categories?

I'm fairly sure the Greek and Roman gods were supposed to be omnipotent.

They weren't. Some however had some qualities that might have justified worship. Maybe even more so than the Christian god.

After all, as Stargate SG1 has taught us: being worthy of worship is not determined by how much power you have - but by how you wield it.

Monotheism or gtfo.

Monotheism or gtfo.

well argued

Agreed case in point Jesus praying before his death and asking if he could be spared the trial ... kind of insane to pray to yourself

yeah, or god calling out from heaven when jesus is baptized saying "atta boy, son!"

i find the notion of the trinity to be far more problematical than the existence of satan.

while satan might fit SOME religions definition of a god, he does not meet CHRISTIANITY'S definition. therefore christianity is not polytheistic because of the existence of satan.

Not all of the gods were all powerful, wasn't there infighting in the myths of the gods? someone had the lose and thus not be all powerful.

then there were the fates, who even the highest god had to see in order to see the future (which they were never inclined to tell).....or were they roman?


either way if you are not all powerful and/or not all knowing you are not omnipotent.

There were the original gods, the gods of the next generation (zeus, athena, etc), titans, lesser gods, blah blah...

Yeah they weren't omnipotent. They were very un-nipotent. :p

while satan might fit SOME religions definition of a god, he does not meet CHRISTIANITY'S definition. therefore christianity is not polytheistic because of the existence of satan.

sounds like a special pleading double standard to me

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

It's an entirely confusing argument that can be used for this, but I will try my best to make it clear. For the Commandment "You shall have no other gods before me," God is saying that he wants humankind to worship him, and nothing should get in the way of that. In a sense, you're correct that humankind serves other "gods," but they are all fashioned by humankind as inadequate attempts to find a higher being that can be found through the Bible.

As for God referring to Himself in the Plural, there is the trinitarian argument of "One God, yet three Persons." What I've come to view it as, is a type of system where the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in fact the same person, but they each have separate personalities and tasks assigned to them. That's as close as I can get to explaining it, and I fear it is inadequate for what you're looking for.

sounds like a special pleading double standard to me

youll have to explain exactly what you mean if you want a response.

you cant judge a religion by the rules of a different religion.

that would be like claiming that the ancient greeks had no gods because none of them were all powerful, all loving and all knowing like their god is.

The Devil doesn't constitute a god. He hasn't the power to create, only to destroy.

Although Christianity is Monotheistic IF and ONLY IF one accepts the Trinity doctrine.

I know I'll receive a healthy flaming for this, but I must.

The Trinity doctrine was conceived of by the Pope (Asthanasius, I believe) to reconcile the idea of 3 separate personages with the desired identity of Monotheism. At the time, people were rather hostile toward any pagan religion, which was defined by polytheism. Since one could make a case for Christianity as being polytheistic, they were having great difficulty gaining acceptance/converts among the Jewish population, as Judaism is as Monotheistic as it gets and people liked it that way.

But the Trinity doctrine isn't scriptural. Jesus didn't pray to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane, and He didn't cry out to himself on the Cross. The voice of God wasn't talking about Himself when he said "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." at the Baptism of Jesus.

And I'm okay with that.

Let's ask Jesus:

An Interview With Jesus

Interviewer: Ladies and Gentlemen, we’re privileged to have with us a man known around the world as Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.

Jesus: That’s me.

I: How are you Jesus?

J: Fine, thanks, and let me say it’s great to be back.

I: Why, after all this time, have you come back?

J: Mostly nostalgia.

I: Can you tell us a little bit about the first time you were here?

J: Well, there’s not much to tell. I think everybody knows the story by now. I was born on Christmas. And actually, that always bothered me, because I only got one present. You know, if I was born a couple of months earlier I would’ve got two presents. But look, I’m not complaining. After all, it’s only material goods.

I: There’s a story that there were three wise men.

J: Well, there were three kings who showed up. I don’t know how wise they were. They didn’t look very wise. They said they followed a star. That don’t sound wise to me.

I: Didn’t they bring gifts?

J: Yes. Gold, frankincense, and I believe, myrrh, which I never did find out what that was. You don’t happen to know what myrrh is, do you?

I: Well, I believe it’s a reddish-brown, bitter gum resin.

J: Oh, great. Just what I need. What am I gonna do with a gum resin? I’d rather have the money, that way I could buy something I need. You know, something I wouldn’t normally buy for myself.

I: What would that be?

J: Oh, I don’t know. A bathing suit. I never had a bathing suit. Maybe a Devo hat. Possibly a bicycle. I really coulda used a bicycle. Do you realize all the walking I did? I must’ve crossed Canaan six, eight times. Up and down, north and south, walking and talking, doin’ miracles, tellin’ stories.

I: Tell us about the miracles. How many miracles did you perform?

J: Well, leaving out the loaves and the fishes, a total of 107 miracles.

I: Why not the loaves and the fishes?

J: Well, technically that one wasn’t a miracle.

I: It wasn’t?

J: No, it turns out a lot of people were putting them back. They were several days old. And besides, not all those miracles were pure miracles anyway.

I: What do you mean? If they weren’t miracles, what were they?

J: Well, some of them were parlor tricks, optical illusions, mass hypnosis. Sometime people were hallucinatin’. I even used acupressure. That’s how I cured most of the blind people.

I: So not all of the New Testament is true?

J: Naaah. Some of the gospel stuff never happened at all. IT was just made up. Luke and Mark used a lot of Drugs. Luke was a physician, and he had access to drugs. Matthew and John were okay, but Luke and Mark would write anything.

I: What about raising Lazarus from the dead?

J: First of all, he wasn’t dead, he was hung-over. I’ve told people that.

I: But in the Bible you said he was dead.

J: No! I said he looked dead. I said, “Jeez, Peter, this guy looks dead!” You see, Lazarus was a very heavy sleeper, plus the day before we had been to a wedding feast, and he had put away a lot of wine.

I: Ahhh! Was that the wedding feast at Cana, where you changed the water into wine?

J: I don’t know. We went to an awful lot of wedding feasts in those days.

I: But did you ever really turn water into wine?

J: Not that I know of. One time I turned apple juice into milk, but I don’t recall the water and wine.

I: All right, speaking of water, let me ask you about another miracle. What about walking on water? Did that really happen?

J: Oh yeah, that was one that really happened. You see, the problem was, I could do it, and the other guys couldn’t. They were jealous. Peter got so mad at me he had these special shoes made, special big shoes, that if you started out walkin’ real fast you could stay on top the water for a while. Then, of course, after a few yards, badda-boom, down he goes right into the water. He sinks like a rock. That’s why I called him peter. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church.

I: Well, that brings up the Apostles. What can you tell us about the Apostles?

J: They smelled like bait, but they were a good bunch of guys. Thirteen of them we had.

I: Thirteen? The Bible says there were only twelve.

J: Well, that was according to Luke. I told you about Luke. Actually, we had thirteen. We had Peter, James, John, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, that’s a different James, Thaddeus. How many is that?

I: That’s ten.

J: Simon, Judas, and Red.

I: Red?

J: Yeah, Red the Apostle.

I: Red the Apostle doesn’t appear in the Bible.

J: Nah, Red kept pretty much to himself. He never came to any of the weddings. He was a little strange; he thought the Red Sea was named after him.

I: And what about Judas?

J: Don’t get me started on Judas. A completely unpleasant person, okay?

I: Well, what about the other Apostles, say for instance, Thomas, was he really a doubter?

J: Believe me, this guy Thomas, you couldn’t tell him nothin’. He was always asking me for ID. Soon as I would see him, he would go, “You got any ID?” To this day he doesn’t believe I’m God.

I: And are you God?

J: Well, partly. I’m a member of the Trinity.

I: Yes. In fact, you’re writing a book about the Trinity.

J: That’s right, it’s called Three’s a Crowd.

I: As I understand it, it’s nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the Holy Ghost.

J: Listen, it’s not an attack, okay? It happens I don’t get along with the Holy Ghost. So I leave him alone. That’s it. What he does is his business.

I: What’s the reason?

J: Well, first of all he’s a wise guy. Every time he shows up, he appears as somethin’ different. One day he’s a dove, another day he’s a tongue of fire. Always foolin’ around. I don’t bother with the guy. I don’t wanna know about him. I don’t wanna see him. I don’t wanna talk to him.

I: Well, let me change the subject. Is there really a placed called hell?

J: Oh yeah, there’s a hell, all right. There’s also a heck. It’n not as severe as hell, but we’ve got a heck and a hell

I: What about purgatory?

J: No, I don’t know about no purgatory. We got heaven, hell, heck, and limbo.

I: What is limbo like?

J: I don’t know. No one is allowed in. If anyone was in there it wouldn’t be limbo, it would just be another place.

I: Getting back to your previous visit, what can you tell us about the Last Supper?

J: Well, first of all, if I’da known I was gonna be crucified, I woulda had a bigger meal. You never want to be crucified on an empty stomach. As it was, I had a little salad and some veal.

I: The crucifixion must have been terrible.

J: Oh yeah, it was awful. Unless you went through it yourself, you could never know how painful it was. And tiring. It was very, very tiring. But I think more than anything else it was embarrassing. You know, in front of all those people, to be crucified like that. But, I guess it redeemed a lot of people. I hope so. I would be a shame to do it for no reason.

I: Were you scared?

J: Oh yea. I was afraid it was gonna rain; I thought for sure I would get hit by lightning. One good thing, though, while I was up there I had a really good view; I could actually see my house. There’s always a bright side.

I: And then three days later you rose from the dead.

J: How’s that?

I: On Easter Sunday. You rose from the dead, didn’t you?

J: Not that I know of. I think I would remember something like that. I do remember sleeping a long time after the crucifixion. Like I said, it was very tiring. I think what mighta happened was I passed out, and they thought I was dead. We didn’t have such good medical people in those days. It was mostly volunteers.

I: And, according to the Bible, forty days later you ascended into Heaven.

J: Pulleys! Ropes, pulleys, and a harness. I think it was Simon that come up with a great harness thing that went under my toga. You couldn’t see it at all. Since that day, I been in Heaven, and, all in all, I would have to say that while I was down here I had a really good time. Except for the suffering.

I: And what do you think about Christianity today?

J: Well, I’m a little embarrassed by it. I wish they would take my name off it. If I had the whole thing to do over, I would probably start one of those Eastern religions like Buddha. Buddha was smart. That’s how come he’s laughing.

I: You wouldn’t want to be a Christian?

J: No I wouldn’t want to be a member of any group whose symbol is a man nailed onto some wood. Especially if it’s me. Buddha’s laughing, meanwhile I’m on the cross.

I: I have a few more questions, do you mind?

J: Hey, be my guest, how often do I get here?

I: Are there really angels?

J: Well, not as many as we used to have. Years ago we had millions of them. Today you can’t get the young people to join. It got too dangerous with all the radar and heat-seeking missiles.

I: What about guardian angels? Are there such things?

J: Yes, we still have guardian angels, but now, with the population explosion, it’s one angel for every six people. Years ago everybody had his own angel.

I: Do you really answer prayers?

J: No. First of all, what with sun spots and radio interference, a lot of them don’t even get through. And between you and me, we just don’t have the staff to handle the workload anymore. In the old days we took pride in answering every single prayer, but like I said, there were less people. And in those days people prayed for something simple, to light a fire, to catch a yak, something like that. But today you got people praying for hockey teams, for longer fingernails, to lose weight. We just can’t keep up.

I: Well, I think we’re about out of time. I certainly want to thank you for visiting with us.

J: Hey, no sweat.

I: Do you have any words of advice?

J: You mean like how to remove chewing gum from a suede garment? Something like that?

I: No, I mean spiritual advice.

J: Well I don’t know how spiritual it is, but I’d say one thing is don’t give your money to the church. They should be giving their money to you.

I: Well, thank you, Jesus, and good night.

J: Well, good night, thanks for having me on here today. And by the way, in case anyone is interested, bell-bottoms will be coming back in the year 2015. Ciao.


-George Carlin.

:D

i find the notion of the trinity to be far more problematical than the existence of satan.

while satan might fit SOME religions definition of a god, he does not meet CHRISTIANITY'S definition. therefore christianity is not polytheistic because of the existence of satan.

But from an objective point of view Christianity can be argued to be polytheistic. Not just Satan, but all archangels are sufficiently godlike for that from humanities point of view, even though the "true" God is vastly more powerful.

Polytheism does not require all gods to be equal.

The Devil doesn't constitute a god. He hasn't the power to create, only to destroy.

That Is my main point about todays devil. It has become a god that mirrors the "good" god. Complete with Anti-Christ (an evil Massiah).

Post of awesomeness!

Lol! Great interview :p:D

-George Carlin.

:D

I love George, and I love you.



That sounds like 70's-to-early-80's George, isn't it? He got more cynical and angry later on.

But from an objective point of view Christianity can be argued to be polytheistic. Not just Satan, but all archangels are sufficiently godlike for that from humanities point of view, even though the "true" God is vastly more powerful.

Polytheism does not require all gods to be equal.

sure. go for it. there would be no problem taking the standards of a different religion to "prove" that christianity is polytheistic.

but what would be the point?

i can use the standards of christianity to "prove" that the romans were atheists since none of their god's reach the christian standard of what constitutes GOD.

and i would be just as wrong as you.

Lol! Great interview :p:D

Any opportunity to post that is thanks enough. :)

I love George, and I love you.



That sounds like 70's-to-early-80's George, isn't it? He got more cynical and angry later on.

I believe so. It was also printed in his book, 'Brain Droppings'. *nod*

The Devil doesn't constitute a god. He hasn't the power to create, only to destroy.

Although Christianity is Monotheistic IF and ONLY IF one accepts the Trinity doctrine.

I know I'll receive a healthy flaming for this, but I must.

The Trinity doctrine was conceived of by the Pope (Asthanasius, I believe) to reconcile the idea of 3 separate personages with the desired identity of Monotheism. At the time, people were rather hostile toward any pagan religion, which was defined by polytheism. Since one could make a case for Christianity as being polytheistic, they were having great difficulty gaining acceptance/converts among the Jewish population, as Judaism is as Monotheistic as it gets and people liked it that way.

But the Trinity doctrine isn't scriptural. Jesus didn't pray to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane, and He didn't cry out to himself on the Cross. The voice of God wasn't talking about Himself when he said "Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." at the Baptism of Jesus.

And I'm okay with that.


it may not be spelled out in the new testament but there are severe problems if you ditch it.

so christians keep it.

youll have to explain exactly what you mean if you want a response.

you cant judge a religion by the rules of a different religion.

that would be like claiming that the ancient greeks had no gods because none of them were all powerful, all loving and all knowing like their god is.

precisely. no particular religion gets to define what falls under the general category of gods. we need to step back and see what the general principle is and then apply it to individual cases. and using this methodology, christianity is clearly polytheistic. to claim otherwise is a fallacy called special pleading.

it may not be spelled out in the new testament but there are severe problems if you ditch it.

problems worse than being completely nonsensical and fundamentally at odds with various parts of their own holy book?

many people hold the trinity to be as so: 1+1+1=3, hence the polytheistic stance, which is what many modern christians tend to see it as, 3 persons, one God yadda yadda.

I see it as so: 1*1*1=1

One God, the trinity is how we see him in three different dimmensions. the "father" is the authority figure in heaven. The son was God coming down into human flesh, fully human fully divine. The Holy Spirit is God's spirit that talks to us via the spirit realm(this gives us divine guidance, and conviction for our sins)

sure. go for it. there would be no problem taking the standards of a different religion to "prove" that christianity is polytheistic.

but what would be the point?

i can use the standards of christianity to "prove" that the romans were atheists since none of their god's reach the christian standard of what constitutes GOD.

and i would be just as wrong as you.

Nope, you would not be. You would just have shown that everyone uses a different definition of god, therefor making the question in the OP pointless unless we agree on a definition.

Nope, you would not be. You would just have shown that everyone uses a different definition of god, therefor making the question in the OP pointless unless we agree on a definition.

no

we will never--6 billion+ human beings--all agree on a definition. nor does it make particular sense for we few in this thread to agree on a definition for all humanity.

all you can ask is that a religion have internal logic and consistency. all they have to follow is their own definition.

problems worse than being completely nonsensical and fundamentally at odds with various parts of their own holy book?

yes

no

we will never--6 billion+ human beings--all agree on a definition. nor does it make particular sense for we few in this thread to agree on a definition for all humanity.

But it would make sense for us to agree on a definition for use in this topic.

precisely. no particular religion gets to define what falls under the general category of gods. we need to step back and see what the general principle is and then apply it to individual cases. and using this methodology, christianity is clearly polytheistic. to claim otherwise is a fallacy called special pleading.

they get to define what falls under THEIR defintion of god.

there is no general definition of what constitutes a god. it varies from culture to culture around the world. so you may use a polytheistic definition of god and make a claim that there are plenty of beings in christianity that would qualify as gods if they used that definition. it would still be wrong since christians worship only ONE god.

as an atheist i can use a defintion that involves only a proven supreme being and show that everyone on earth is also an atheist (in the sense of worshipping NO gods) since none of their gods meet MY definition.

Nope, you would not be. You would just have shown that everyone uses a different definition of god, therefor making the question in the OP pointless unless we agree on a definition.

but people are able to talk cross-culturally about gods. since they can and do, they must mean something by the term. and for talking about every religion and belief system besides christianity, christians use a definition that certainly would include the various other biblical supernatural beings as gods. therefore trying to not include them is just special pleading and should be mocked and ridiculed.

they wish to use two different standards, one for them and one for everybody else. this is both fallacious and stupid. we should use one standard for talking about similar things, just as a general principle, differing only where there is a relevant difference. and there isn't a relevant difference that i can see here, so one standard it is. now we could attempt to use their own standard, but as ashmoria and khadgar have noted, this would make essentially everybody who ever lived an atheist, and that is plainly stupid. so we should use the cross-cultural standard. and this makes christianity polytheistic.

Jesus is a chimera.

there is no general definition of what constitutes a god. it varies from culture to culture around the world.

no, it really doesn't. the specifics differ but the concept is quite plain.

But it would make sense for us to agree on a definition for use in this topic.

no it would not.

at "best" it would involve 20 pages of extremely boring back and forth that came to no agreement.

no, it really doesn't. the specifics differ but the concept is quite plain.

the specifics are what count

unless you are going to define every supernatural "life" as a god.

sure. go for it. there would be no problem taking the standards of a different religion to "prove" that christianity is polytheistic.

but what would be the point?

i can use the standards of christianity to "prove" that the romans were atheists since none of their god's reach the christian standard of what constitutes GOD.

and i would be just as wrong as you.

There's a generally accepted definition.

no it would not.

at "best" it would involve 20 pages of extremely boring back and forth that came to no agreement.

How would that be different from any other topic in NSG? :p

it would still be wrong since christians worship only ONE god.


Again give then power attributed to the devil today I would have to claim that They worship one god yes, but they FEAR a 2nd god.



Just for grins and giggles, what exactly defines the christian god so as to make it the ONLY god?

There's a generally accepted definition.



How would that be different from any other topic in NSG? :p

none but it would still be too boring for more than 2 or 3 people to participate it.

Again give then power attributed to the devil today I would have to claim that They worship one god yes, but they FEAR a 2nd god.



Just for grins and giggles, what exactly defines the christian god so as to make it the ONLY god?

as a monotheistic religion, christianity can only have one god. the impossibility of more gods makes the one god the only god.

if, as you suggest, the current thought on satan makes him as powerful as god (or so powerful that he may as well BE a god) its an error of the thought, not an indication of polytheism.

many christians believe unofficial things.

as a monotheistic religion, christianity can only have one god. the impossibility of more gods makes the one god the only god.

...The point of my topic was to see if there was a chance that the monotheistic label, at least as far as today's christianity goes,is wrong.


Claiming that it is monotheistic because it is labeled as such is proof of nothing.


Its like claiming the bible is 100% truth because the bible says it is 100% truth.

many christians believe unofficial things.

But if, as you seem to suggest, everything is, in the end, left up to the individual, how can anything be pointed to as unofficial or official?

as a monotheistic religion, christianity can only have one god. the impossibility of more gods makes the one god the only god.

I am a superhero. I can be the only superhero. The impossibility of other superheroes makes me the only superhero.

we will never--6 billion+ human beings--all agree on a definition. nor does it make particular sense for we few in this thread to agree on a definition for all humanity.

Then Christianity is polytheistic because my definition of a god says so, monotheistic because someone elses says that and nontheistic to yet another party.
As I said: pointless, unless we agree on a definition.

as a monotheistic religion, christianity can only have one god. the impossibility of more gods makes the one god the only god.

if, as you suggest, the current thought on satan makes him as powerful as god (or so powerful that he may as well BE a god) its an error of the thought, not an indication of polytheism.

many christians believe unofficial things.

That's a silly, silly statement, and you're a silly, silly person.

...The point of my topic was to see if there was a chance that the monotheistic label, at least as far as today's christianity goes,is wrong.


Claiming that it is monotheistic because it is labeled as such is proof of nothing.


Its like claiming the bible is 100% truth because the bible says it is 100% truth.

Well, christians do that. =D

I am a superhero. I can be the only superhero. The impossibility of other superheroes makes me the only superhero.

It's true, I've seen him punch cows.

That's a silly, silly statement, and you're a silly, silly person.


i made several statements, which one did you find silly?

Then Christianity is polytheistic because my definition of a god says so, monotheistic because someone elses says that and nontheistic to yet another party.
As I said: pointless, unless we agree on a definition.

then i guess your thread is pointless.

you wont get an agreement and even if you did its not binding on anyone else entering the thread nor with the religions in question.

the specifics are what count

not for what is a god and what isn't.

here's the thing - nobody calls their gods 'gods'. they call them all sorts of other words, and we translate those words as 'gods'. you are proposing that this is either impossible or incorrect. neither option seems even basically plausible without significant further argument.

I am a superhero. I can be the only superhero. The impossibility of other superheroes makes me the only superhero.

You bought the deranged expansion for the original Munchkin and blended it with Munchkin: Impossible ;) ?

then i guess your thread is pointless.

It is not my thread ;) But that was my point, yes.

What was yours ?

you wont get an agreement and even if you did its not binding on anyone else entering the thread nor with the religions in question.

when i say the phrase "greek gods", what do you think of? does my phrase have a meaning? are you able to understand it?

It is not my thread ;) But that was my point, yes.

What was yours ?

my point is that you cant use outside defintions to decide if a religion is polytheistic or not.

as such, the trinity is far more troublesome a concept than is satan.

when i say the phrase "greek gods", what do you think of? does my phrase have a meaning? are you able to understand it?

sure

but i dont know exactly what makes a greek god a god and why some supernatural creatures dont make the grade.

my point is that you cant use outside defintions to decide if a religion is polytheistic or not.


its not other religions being used to define christianity exactly. it is using other religions to show that there is some sort of common definition as to what a god is. as such there are beings in christianity that might fit this definition and thus cause it to possibly reclassified as polytheistic.

sure

but i dont know exactly what makes a greek god a god and why some supernatural creatures dont make the grade.

how can you possibly grasp the meaning of the concept of greek gods under your proposed system for such things? from what standpoint are you working from?

i made several statements, which one did you find silly?

The "Christianity is monotheistic because Christianity says it's monotheistic" thing. Silly, silly!

how can you possibly grasp the meaning of the concept of greek gods under your proposed system for such things? from what standpoint are you working from?

I think the word 'god' is too vague. Let's use the word 'deity' from now on. Greek deities. The christian deity.

=)


EDIT for clarification:

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

I think the word 'god' is too vague. Let's use the word 'deity' from now on. Greek deities. The christian deity.

=)

how is that any less vague?

how can you possibly grasp the meaning of the concept of greek gods under your proposed system for such things? from what standpoint are you working from?

I think it is something like:
"If I only call squirrels gods, they are gods and everything else is not".

how is that any less vague?

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

The "Christianity is monotheistic because Christianity says it's monotheistic" thing. Silly, silly!

no no

thats not what i said

*too nervous to check*

what i said was that christianity is monotheistic because it believes that there is only one god.

all other beings that YOU might define as a god, they define as a supernatural being of some sort or other. they even took ancient gods and redefined them as christian saints. or the occasional demon.

that an angel might meet someone's definition of god makes no difference. an angel doesnt meet the christian definition of god.

no no

thats not what i said

*too nervous to check*

what i said was that christianity is monotheistic because it believes that there is only one god.

all other beings that YOU might define as a god, they define as a supernatural being of some sort or other. they even took ancient gods and redefined them as christian saints. or the occasional demon.

that an angel might meet someone's definition of god makes no difference. an angel doesnt meet the christian definition of god.

Right, but:

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


Satan is a deity. Therefore, christianity has multiple deities, but only one deity actually NAMED "God". An objective observer would logically deduce that they are polytheistic.


EDITed out my stupid.

what i said was that christianity is monotheistic because it believes that there is only one god.


well that is a bit clearer than:
as a monotheistic religion, christianity can only have one god. the impossibility of more gods makes the one god the only god.

how can you possibly grasp the meaning of the concept of greek gods under your proposed system for such things? from what standpoint are you working from?

huh?

what proposed system?

i understand that the greeks had a pantheon of gods. thats the standpoint im working from.

if you want me to use the christian definition of god, the greek gods are a sham. a delusion of the ancient world. perhaps even satan keeping the masses away from the one correct faith. and this would demonstrate why its foolish to use a definition from outside the religion being discussed.

well that is a bit clearer than:

*shrug*

it seems the same to me.

Right, but:

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


Satan is a deity. Therefore, christianity has multiple deities, but only one deity actually NAMED "God". An objective observer would logically deduce that they are polytheistic.


EDITed out my stupid.

which perhaps demonstrates the need to study theology rather than etymology.

which perhaps demonstrates the need to study theology rather than etymology.

Schmagoigan?


EDIT: I mean, what?

the specifics are what count

unless you are going to define every supernatural "life" as a god.

If it exists outside of nature what else would it be?

I just read this whole thread, all 7 pages, and I think it's really interesting stuff. I hope nobody minds that I jump in here, but I'd like to mention a few things:

1. For the purpose of this discussion, passages from the Bible are pretty much irrelevant. Why? Because the version you are quoting is almost certainly a reprint of a reprint of a reprint...of a really bad translation. I've done some translation work myself, so I can tell you that it is nearly impossible to translate a work, especially one that is already centuries old at the time of translation, and retain the original meaning. Every word has multiple synonyms, phrases don't translate, nor does slang, and the translator has to guess what the original intent was to begin with. This is only a few steps up from making it up yourself. So the Bible can't be used to argue what Christianity is meant to be, it can only be used to describe what society has turned it into. And, unless I'm greatly mistaken, you are talking about the original, yes? Regardless, I would suggest using the Bible only for general concepts. Using exact wording to prove a point is ridiculous and proves nothing at all.

2. Of course you have to agree on a definition. You can't have a meaningful conversation without one. If you refuse to agree on a definition of God, you are simply refusing to talk, so why continue posting? Obviously the world will not agree with it, nor do they have to. Obviously it won't be binding in any way, how could it be? A definition is simply a tool which allows for the exchange of ideas. We're not creating doctrine here, just talking. Relax.

3. None of you devout Christians/Catholics need to worry about this. Even if this thread ends up showing, without a doubt, that Christianity is actually polytheistic based on the modern definition of the word, it doesn't hurt your faith. If you are a true believer, you've had to live with the fact that it isn't logical for a long time now. What's one more illogical aspect? (Seriously, someone argue with me about this so we can start pointing out all the illogical aspects of Christianity. That will guarantee another 10 pages.)

4. Finally, please don't make the mistake of assuming that a person's thread is indicative of their beliefs. Some people like the play "devil's advocate", and some just like to toss ideas around. Don't think it's an attack on you or your faith, and don't reply by attacking others. Not to mention, even if someone else's beliefs are different from yours, that's not an open invitation to be lectured. Again, just relax.

So, really, you've hit kind of a dead end here, at least as far as the original intent of the thread goes. There is no way to determine whether or not Christianity can be considered polytheistic unless you establish a definition for what makes something a 'god'. It can be based on any logic you want, as long as that logic is consistent. And, if it makes you feel better, you can modify the conclusion in an appropriate manner. For example, if we use the Greek definition of God, you can say "according the the Greek definition of God, Christianity is polytheistic." This ensures that you don't feel like you're giving in, or, God forbid, just plain wrong.

Honestly, egos are so fragile, they should be packed in Styrofoam.

(Since I started writing this, multiple new posts have gone up. Please forgive me if anything in here has already been rendered irrelevant.)

I just read this whole thread, all 7 pages, and I think it's really interesting stuff. I hope nobody minds that I jump in here, but I'd like to mention a few things:

No gun smileys in your first post :o ?
Welcome :)

Schmagoigan?


EDIT: I mean, what?

playing word games is meaningless. you need to understand the theology of the religion in question.

If it exists outside of nature what else would it be?

are you sugggesting that it IS?

i mean, you die and your soul goes to heaven, are you now a god?

are fairies gods?

i suppose you can make a definition that makes the answer YES but *shrug* i dont see the point of it.

*snip*

You will do well here, new one. Welcome. :)

no no

thats not what i said

*too nervous to check*

what i said was that christianity is monotheistic because it believes that there is only one god.

all other beings that YOU might define as a god, they define as a supernatural being of some sort or other. they even took ancient gods and redefined them as christian saints. or the occasional demon.

that an angel might meet someone's definition of god makes no difference. an angel doesnt meet the christian definition of god.
Actually what you said is that Christianity is monotheistic because it is "impossible" for there to be other gods. I guess it is impossible because Christianity says so and therefore Christianity (and everything else) is monotheistic because Christianity says so.

are you sugggesting that it IS?

i mean, you die and your soul goes to heaven, are you now a god?

are fairies gods?

i suppose you can make a definition that makes the answer YES but *shrug* i dont see the point of it.

If they have the power to exceed the bounds of the physical then yes there are more then one religion with "gods" that are exactly that.

are you sugggesting that it IS?

i mean, you die and your soul goes to heaven, are you now a god?

are fairies gods?

i suppose you can make a definition that makes the answer YES but *shrug* i dont see the point of it.


You just showed why others were using other religions to show that there is some underlying definition.



I like the definition of deity for use in this thread. It explains why some are considered gods and pixies are not.









also, don't moromns (a branch of christianity) believe that if you are faithful and true, you die and get you own planet to be god over?

Actually what you said is that Christianity is monotheistic because it is "impossible" for there to be other gods. I guess it is impossible because Christianity says so and therefore Christianity (and everything else) is monotheistic because Christianity says so.

and that is my POINT.

the internal definition of god in all the abrahamic religions is (in part) that there is only ONE.

anyone can come up with a definition of gods that would include many figures from christian theology but, so what?, christians still only have one god.

if that is what you want, go for it. it doesnt make it true. it just makes it fit your definition.

anyone can come up with a definition of gods that would include many figures from christian theology but, so what?, christians still only have one god.

Call only one God.

also, don't moromns (a branch of christianity) believe that if you are faithful and true, you die and get you own planet to be god over?

thats why mormons are christian heretics.

Call only one God.

no

HAVE only one god by their own definition.

huh?

what proposed system?

i understand that the greeks had a pantheon of gods. thats the standpoint im working from.

the greeks had no such thing. the only way for them to have a pantheon of gods is for you to agree that there is some sort of underlying, unifying concept into which the greek mythological creatures fit. otherwise they had a collection of whatever-it-was-they-called-their-various-supernatural-beings, and that collection can't be called 'gods'.

if the idea of greek gods has meaning, then the idea of gods is not tied to any particular religion.

thats why mormons are christian heretics.

Not according to your own reasoning. You claim you cannot use your rules to state what they are if they disagree.

thats why mormons are christian heretics.
as are cathloics, baptist, protestants, methodists, ect, ect...


depending on which version you talk to the other is a heretic...

no

HAVE only one god by their own definition.

they don't get to use idiosyncratic definitions when in discourse with the wider world.

That Is my main point about todays devil. It has become a god that mirrors the "good" god. Complete with Anti-Christ (an evil Massiah).

Actually, the term translated into Anti-Christ actually reflect what has been describes as a substitute Messiah, instead of one that says they hate Christ, as many who claim to be Anti-Christs do. The true Anti-Christ will perform many of the same miracles that Jesus did to "prove" that he is indeed the Messiah, and he will deceive many when he does so. This falls into line with Satan, who is in essence, a copycat of God, though he was created by God. He stated, before he was cast out of heaven when he was referred to as Lucifer, that "I will move my throne above that of God's, I will be like the Most High." he wanted to be worshipped like God was, because he wasn't content to simply worship God like the rest of the angels were.

This, of course, opens up an entirely new philosophical discussion, likely consisting of the question, "If God knows everything, why did he create Satan, and create evil?" The answer, I believe, is that he wanted to be worshiped by creatures of their own free will, and he wanted to give that chance to humans, after freezing the angels in their choices (whether they chose to serve or fight God). Why He allowed them to survive is anyones guess, but I guess he wanted humankind to realize the difference between good and evil (Which is not anything in and of itself, rather a measure of the lack of good in someone). he allowed the fallen angels to survive so that humankind may have a free choice of whather they serve God willingly, or reject Him.

To remedy my lack of smiley...

and say thanks for the welcome. I *love* conversations like this.

Seriously though, just agree on a definition so we can get on with this. Of, if it makes it any easier, develop several definitions and evaluate them all, one at a time.

By insisting that any definition would be meaningless, you're just stalling the conversation. You had to have known, once you saw the subject, that the word "god" would have to be defined to give the thread meaning. I suspect (and I'm not attacking anyone here, just speculating) that those who refuse to agree on a definition for the purpose of this discussion are either being contrary for no reason, or afraid of their religion being diminished somehow. If it's the former, just go away. If it's the latter, calm down. Nothing that is said here will have a lasting impact on your faith, unless you let it.

Now, let's have some fun!

they don't get to use idiosyncratic definitions when in discourse with the wider world.

there IS no accepted definition in the wider world.

beside which, monotheism is the largest belief in the world. so if one HAD to claim one definition, it would have to be the jewish/christian/islamic one.

To remedy my lack of smiley...

and say thanks for the welcome. I *love* conversations like this.

Seriously though, just agree on a definition so we can get on with this. Of, if it makes it any easier, develop several definitions and evaluate them all, one at a time.

By insisting that any definition would be meaningless, you're just stalling the conversation. You had to have known, once you saw the subject, that the word "god" would have to be defined to give the thread meaning. I suspect (and I'm not attacking anyone here, just speculating) that those who refuse to agree on a definition for the purpose of this discussion are either being contrary for no reason, or afraid of their religion being diminished somehow. If it's the former, just go away. If it's the latter, calm down. Nothing that is said here will have a lasting impact on your faith, unless you let it.

Now, let's have some fun!


you have a strange notion of what might be fun.

you have a strange notion of what might be fun.

and you post here because you think it is boring?:D

beside which, monotheism is the largest belief in the world.

Currently, yes.

so if one HAD to claim one definition, it would have to be the jewish/christian/islamic one.

Not from a historic perspective.

Aside - you did not respond to the inconsistency in your reasoning when calling mormons heretics. I am interested to hear why you believe there is no inconsistency.

I always thought the worship of various saints and angels and empowering them with various traits lent Christianity a distinctly polytheistic feel. Probably a holdover from the changes the faith went through to convert the Romans.

Saints and angels are not worshipped. They're something you think of in order to focus prayers, or to contemplate their lives (in the case of saints) to see how to be a better person.

Angel translates as messenger. I suppose you can think of them as being entrusted to carry your prayers for you.

Currently, yes.



Not from a historic perspective.

Aside - you did not respond to the inconsistency in your reasoning when calling mormons heretics. I am interested to hear why you believe there is no inconsistency.

currently is what is important

and im sorry i missed your question about mormon heresy, let me find it.

this actually is just an interpretation, and not really the most obvious one given what we know of the origins of the old testament books and the people who wrote them

It's all interpretation. And what more 'obvious' interpretation is there?

I do have a strange idea of fun.

Anyway, there seems to be a problem here regarding point of view. We are going back and forth evaluating Christianity from opposing POVs, but in order to move forward here we have to agree on one (or several), and from those generate one (or several) definitions for evaluation. It doesn't matter that there is no worldwide consensus, because a) the world isn't posting on this thread and b) we're not trying to establish fact, we're just talking through it to reach a logical conclusion. I'm going to write in all caps just to make sure you get what I'm saying.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE DEFINITION(S) WE USE ARE TECHNICALLY CORRECT, UNIVERSAL, APPROPRIATE, KOSHER, OR WHATEVER. WE ONLY NEED DEFINITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION. WE DON'T NEED ANYONE ELSE TO AGREE TO THEM, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM OURSELVES.

Just to get the creative juices flowing, let me throw down a silly example:

After much discussion, we decide to use the following definitions for 'god' and evaluate each on an individual basis
1) bigger than a breadbox
2) smaller than a pebble
3) smarter than lettuce
4) generally good natured
5) phosphorescent

Clearly, nobody would agree with these definitions, but they would still serve the purpose of evaluating the subject using agreed-upon criteria. Get it?

and you post here because you think it is boring?:D

im enjoying the way the thread is NOW

i am completely uninterested in developing a concensus on the definition of god.

the phrase "mental masturbation" comes to mind but i guess the more correct term would be "mental circle jerk"

and that is my POINT.

the internal declaration of god in all the abrahamic religions is (in part) that there is only ONE.
ie. By the definition of Christianity there is only one god therefore polytheism and polytheism in Christian especially is impossible.
My religion says that is wrong.

Who wins? I dunno but I bet my god can kick your god's ass.

Agreed case in point Jesus praying before his death and asking if he could be spared the trial ... kind of insane to pray to yourself

Except you're of course ignoring the distinction between his incarnate form, and his form as the risen, at the right hand of God.

It's sort of like avatars in D&D -- a living portion of the God represented, in mortal form. ;)

Saints and angels are not worshipped. They're something you think of in order to focus prayers, or to contemplate their lives (in the case of saints) to see how to be a better person.

Angels yes, but the veneration of saints and Mary is the problem many Christian divisions have with Catholicism.


I hold Jesus is a chimera. He has the legs of a ghost, the body of a man, and the head of a god.

and im sorry i missed your question about mormon heresy, let me find it.

It was not a question but a statement.

You state that the only definition of god relevant to determining if Christianity is polytheistic or not is the Christian definition.

You (seem to) deny that the only definition of Christianity relevant to determining if mormons are heretics is the mormon definition.

Since there is no consensus on the definition of either term (God or Christianity) these two statements show inconsistent reasoning. Do you agree or not - and if not: why ?

EDIT: yes - it moved up :) Thank you timewarps :)

as are cathloics, baptist, protestants, methodists, ect, ect...


depending on which version you talk to the other is a heretic...

oh see? it was one page back

considering that there are a few million mormons and 2 billion other christians im OK with calling the mormons christian heretics.

the basic tenets of christianity are outlined in the nicean creed. anyone with a belief outside that creed is a heretic. (not that the definition hasnt been narrower in the past)

i grabbed this one off the net, wording varies

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


since the mormons believe that whole become a god after death if you meet the qualfications thing, they are heretics.

not that there is anything wrong with that.

and as long as THEY have internal consistency, who cares what their definition of god might be?

oh see? it was one page back

considering that there are a few million mormons and 2 billion other christians im OK with calling the mormons christian heretics.

the basic tenets of christianity are outlined in the nicean creed. anyone with a belief outside that creed is a heretic. (not that the definition hasnt been narrower in the past)
Let's play guess how many versions of the Nicene creed there are among the denominations...

oh see? it was one page back

That wasn't mine. I rephrased it for clarity.. but it again is one page back.
A god is no doubt playing with us...

I hold Jesus is a chimera. He has the legs of a ghost, the body of a man, and the head of a god.

sounds good. draw me a picture and I will get a tattoo.

sounds good. draw me a picture and I will get a tattoo.
If a photoshop will suffice, I will get back to you.

ie. By the definition of Christianity there is only one god therefore polytheism and polytheism in Christian especially is impossible.
My religion says that is wrong.

Who wins? I dunno but I bet my god can kick your god's ass.

honey, im an atheist. they are BOTH wrong.

my point is that the only definition of god that should matter to YOU is the one defined by your own religion. if your religion is consistent with its own defintion, thats good enough.

there can be no ONE definition of god that covers all religions. it doesnt make any sense to use one religion's definition to diss the beliefs of another religion.

and it certainly doesnt make any sense to create a non-religious definition of "god" (or deity) that should be used to judge the correctness of particular religions.

sounds good. draw me a picture and I will get a tattoo.


Would the southpark God do ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/God_(South_Park).gif/180px-God_(South_Park).gif

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

over 2 billion christians huh? I doubt they are all catholic.

Let's play guess how many versions of the Nicene creed there are among the denominations...

they are all approximately the same.

the interpretations of what they mean may vary though.

they are all approximately the same.
Yes, no, and kind of.

over 2 billion christians huh? I doubt they are all catholic.
"catholic," as used there, means "universal." From Greek roots.

Would the southpark God do ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/God_(South_Park).gif/180px-God_(South_Park).gif

how could it? it is the heretical moromn god...

and this makes christianity polytheistic.

Except that it isn't, no matter how many times you tell us it is.

There is one God in Christianity. There are different aspects of God, just as there are different aspects to people. Parents expect their children to show them respect; these same people may show respect to their own parents; these same people treat their friends in a different matter. Does that mean there are literally three Katganistans, because she treats students in one manner, her parents in a second, and her friends in a third?

over 2 billion christians huh? I doubt they are all catholic.

*shrug*

non roman catholics have a different interpretation of what that phrase means.

1 Billion Catholics. 1 Billion others following the other denominations.

Except that it isn't, no matter how many times you tell us it is.

There is one God in Christianity. There are different aspects of God, just as there are different aspects to people. Parents expect their children to show them respect; these same people may show respect to their own parents; these same people treat their friends in a different matter. Does that mean there are literally three Katganistans, because she treats students in one manner, her parents in a second, and her friends in a third?
There are not 3 aspects of God; there are three entities of God considered one being. Like out-of-body schizophrenia.

Except that it isn't, no matter how many times you tell us it is.

There is one God in Christianity. There are different aspects of God, just as there are different aspects to people. Parents expect their children to show them respect; these same people may show respect to their own parents; these same people treat their friends in a different matter. Does that mean there are literally three Katganistans, because she treats students in one manner, her parents in a second, and her friends in a third?

But it would get kind of creepy to name all the sides and then have one side talk to the other sides outloud requesting things

Again give then power attributed to the devil today I would have to claim that They worship one god yes, but they FEAR a 2nd god.



Just for grins and giggles, what exactly defines the christian god so as to make it the ONLY god?

For Christians, it is the only God. I would guess that for Muslims, Allah is the only God.

Would the southpark God do ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/God_(South_Park).gif/180px-God_(South_Park).gif

he is too cute.

Except that it isn't, no matter how many times you tell us it is.

There is one God in Christianity. There are different aspects of God, just as there are different aspects to people. Parents expect their children to show them respect; these same people may show respect to their own parents; these same people treat their friends in a different matter. Does that mean there are literally three Katganistans, because she treats students in one manner, her parents in a second, and her friends in a third?

because there are in fact 7 Katganistans. *nod*

Except that it isn't, no matter how many times you tell us it is.

There is one God in Christianity. There are different aspects of God, just as there are different aspects to people. Parents expect their children to show them respect; these same people may show respect to their own parents; these same people treat their friends in a different matter. Does that mean there are literally three Katganistans, because she treats students in one manner, her parents in a second, and her friends in a third?

Yup. In that regard, trinitarian theology is in many ways a smaller-scale version of Hindu mythology. Lots of gods, but all aspects of a singular God.

there IS no accepted definition in the wider world.

sure there is. its whatever the definition is that allows me to talk to you or anyone else about norse gods, hindu gods, ojibwa gods, greek gods, australian aboriginal gods, the christian god, etc. and not have you say "wtf? i don't understand the words coming out of your mouth. it seems like gibberish to me."

Yup. In that regard, trinitarian theology is in many ways a smaller-scale version of Hindu mythology. Lots of gods, but all aspects of a singular God.

does that mean i can claim that the great majority of humanity is monotheistic?

not that hindus and christians understand the "singular god" in the same way...

Does that mean there are literally three Katganistans, because she treats students in one manner, her parents in a second, and her friends in a third?

i don't know, are there three independent beings that can interact with each other in the physical world that fulfill these three aspects? 'cause if so, then yes, there are.

or to ask another way, can kaganistan #2 be seated to the right of katganistan #3 at the dinner table?

sure there is. its whatever the definition is that allows me to talk to you or anyone else about norse gods, hindu gods, ojibwa gods, greek gods, australian aboriginal gods, the christian god, etc. and not have you say "wtf? i don't understand the words coming out of your mouth. it seems like gibberish to me."

all those gods are different. we call them "gods" as a shorthand so we dont have to take a multitude of theologies into consideration.

if a religion calls it a god (in english) then its a god as far as non-theology is concerned. THEY define the gods, not us. whatever they or the anthropologist studying them call a god IS a god. we dont check with a defintion and say "nope, thats not good enough to be a god". we take it at face value.

if we do an indepth theological study of a particular religion, we may find that what is called "god" in english doesnt in fact fit with their theology. then those who care will drop the designation.

as i said before, its the specifics that matter. that is held in theology not in etymology.

does that mean i can claim that the great majority of humanity is monotheistic?

not that hindus and christians understand the "singular god" in the same way...

...I don't understand. In the sense that, if you add the number of Christians and Hindus together, you'd have a large majority, yes, the great majority of humanity is monotheistic.

all those gods are different. we call them "gods" as a shorthand so we dont have to take a multitude of theologies into consideration.

if a religion calls it a god (in english) then its a god as far as non-theology is concerned. THEY define the gods, not us. whatever they or the anthropologist studying them call a god IS a god. we dont check with a defintion and say "nope, thats not good enough to be a god". we take it at face value.

sounds like a personal problem to me, because people of various sorts really do discuss whether, for example, rainbow serpent is a god or would be better termed as an 'ancestral spirit being' or something. religion and gods are a feature of human societies that can be and are meaningfully studied cross-culturally.

when i say the phrase "greek gods", what do you think of? does my phrase have a meaning? are you able to understand it?

Sure.
Figures of Greek myths no longer even worshipped by Greeks.
Next question?

...I don't understand. In the sense that, if you add the number of Christians and Hindus together, you'd have a large majority, yes, the great majority of humanity is monotheistic.

*glares*

just say "yes, ashmoria, you are right, as always"



gotta add in the moslems too. and the jews but they dont add much to the total.

subtract out the atheists in china and one could probably call it the vast majority.

so what would a hindu use as a defintion of this monotheistic god (without calling him by name)?

im thinking abrahamic religions would go with "creator and manager of the universe" as a start.

Yup. In that regard, trinitarian theology is in many ways a smaller-scale version of Hindu mythology. Lots of gods, but all aspects of a singular God.

brahman isn't really a god per se

sounds like a personal problem to me, because people of various sorts really do discuss whether, for example, rainbow serpent is a god or would be better termed as an 'ancestral spirit being' or something. religion and gods are a feature of human societies that can be and are meaningfully studied cross-culturally.

i was thinking of shinto or perhaps animism where we might on a cursory view think that they had many gods but if you go more indepth you find that your definition of god is inadequate to their theology.

sure you can use a catch-all definition of "god" but what good is it? once you study a particular theology you have to come to a completely new definiton based on that theology.

I'll tell you. It's a tool for classification. That's all it is. If our definition (which we haven't even determined yet) indicates there are no gods in a given religion, we simply say "based on our definition, there are no gods in this religion". There's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't invalidate this conversation. That's like saying if the answer to a math problem is zero, there is no answer.

I'll tell you. It's a tool for classification. That's all it is. If our definition (which we haven't even determined yet) indicates there are no gods in a given religion, we simply say "based on our definition, there are no gods in this religion". There's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't invalidate this conversation. That's like saying if the answer to a math problem is zero, there is no answer.

we will not come to a consensus agreement on what constitutes a god.

its not possible

its not binding for the next guy who enters the thread.

its a waste of time.

You're not getting this, are you? We're not trying to define God in a factual manner that everyone must abide by. Nothing that is said here becomes law. We are just trying to have a meaningful conversation. And, like I've already said, if everybody has a different idea of what the definition should be, we can evaluate them all. The problem is there is no cooperation here. One person proposes a definition, and everyone else runs to shoot it down. Let's try a different strategy: let's collect all the definitions that have been proposed and evaluate them, one at a time. If we can't reach a consensus view regarding which definition is the most logical, we will at least have achieved the goal of this thread: to classify Christianity as mono- or polytheistic. It doesn't have to be right, it only has to be interesting. Why are you fighting this so hard?

You're not getting this, are you? We're not trying to define God in a factual manner that everyone must abide by. Nothing that is said here becomes law. We are just trying to have a meaningful conversation. And, like I've already said, if everybody has a different idea of what the definition should be, we can evaluate them all. The problem is there is no cooperation here. One person proposes a definition, and everyone else runs to shoot it down. Let's try a different strategy: let's collect all the definitions that have been proposed and evaluate them, one at a time. If we can't reach a consensus view regarding which definition is the most logical, we will at least have achieved the goal of this thread: to classify Christianity as mono- or polytheistic. It doesn't have to be right, it only has to be interesting. Why are you fighting this so hard?

because its useless and, ultimately, boring.

the defintion of god is only important in a theological context. it has no use outside of that.

to say, for example, that an angel fits a generic definition of god belies the truth that they are NOT gods in the abrahamic tradition. so why be bothered to accept a definition that has to be discarded as soon as you gain some understanding of the theology invovled?

christianity, as all the abrahamic religions, is monotheistic. that you can come up with a definition of "god" that makes it seem polytheistic is meaningless.

Now that's interesting. I'm compelled to ask why you are even bothering to post to a thread you think is meaningless, boring, and will come to no result.

Anyway, that's hardly the point. What this comes down to is a word game.

That's right, a word game. Despite how it appears, this is not a scholarly debate that will change the face of the world. Nor is it a conversation likely to change anyone's beliefs. It's basically a game, intended to determine under what circumstances christianity can be described as polytheistic. The fact that you're taking this so seriously tells me you've totally missed the point.

Please, this was meant to be enjoyable. If you don't enjoy it, don't participate.

Now that's interesting. I'm compelled to ask why you are even bothering to post to a thread you think is meaningless, boring, and will come to no result.

Anyway, that's hardly the point. What this comes down to is a word game.

That's right, a word game. Despite how it appears, this is not a scholarly debate that will change the face of the world. Nor is it a conversation likely to change anyone's beliefs. It's basically a game, intended to determine under what circumstances christianity can be described as polytheistic. The fact that you're taking this so seriously tells me you've totally missed the point.

Please, this was meant to be enjoyable. If you don't enjoy it, don't participate.


gee you might have noticed that i am participating on my own terms and not yours.

im having a good enough time and i dont think it would be enjoyable to spend 20 pages pounding out a definition of god whose only use is to diss christianity.

go figure.

i was thinking of shinto or perhaps animism where we might on a cursory view think that they had many gods but if you go more indepth you find that your definition of god is inadequate to their theology.

then we have two options. broaden the definition of gods or add another category of supernatural beings to our cross-cultural vocabulary. and, indeed, this is precisely the argument which is had over what to call certain features of animist belief systems that resemble each other.

we all already accept a definition of gods which admits to the possibility of more than one god, and allows ra, jesus, quetzalcoatl, and even the various venus figurines into the club. let's start with that one, and flesh it out as we need to.

Now that's interesting. I'm compelled to ask why you are even bothering to post to a thread you think is meaningless, boring, and will come to no result.

Anyway, that's hardly the point. What this comes down to is a word game.

That's right, a word game. Despite how it appears, this is not a scholarly debate that will change the face of the world. Nor is it a conversation likely to change anyone's beliefs. It's basically a game, intended to determine under what circumstances christianity can be described as polytheistic. The fact that you're taking this so seriously tells me you've totally missed the point.

Please, this was meant to be enjoyable. If you don't enjoy it, don't participate.

and, are you claiming to be nihelm's puppet?

you came to the thread rather late to be the one deciding how it was supposed to be taken.

then we have two options. broaden the definition of gods or add another category of supernatural beings to our cross-cultural vocabulary. and, indeed, this is precisely the argument which is had over what to call certain features of animist belief systems that resemble each other.

we all already accept a definition of gods which admits to the possibility of more than one god, and allows ra, jesus, quetzalcoatl, and even the various venus figurines into the club. let's start with that one, and flesh it out as we need to.

arent there already many different categories of supernatural beings? at least there are in abrahamic religions and in the greek/roman tradition.

the defintion of god is only important in a theological context. it has no use outside of that.

except all the use the term gets in religious studies, anthropology, archeology, philosophy, literature, art, history, etc...

There's no reason I can't evaluate the purpose of the thread, regardless of when I entered. It's open to interpretation, much like religion. If you don't agree, feel free to say so. However, I would think it strange to start a thread that isn't meant to be enjoyed...I guess that's just me.

As far as it being a word game, what else could it possibly be? Do you think anyone in their right mind would open such a conversation and expect to change the definition of a major religion? Come on, let's be serious. There is no logical purpose for this thread other than to play with words.

Or did you think nihelm actually expected to convince Christians that they are polytheistic?

Again, let's be serious. This is a game, and that's all it can be, at least in this format.

Okay, assuming this post gets approved, I just wanted to say, I'm done here. I don't want anyone to think Christianity is being dissed, because that's just not happening. Obviously, this topic is too controversial to have a rational conversation about, so I'm moving on.

Good luck, everyone!

arent there already many different categories of supernatural beings? at least there are in abrahamic religions and in the greek/roman tradition.

of course there are. but we don't care what various religions call their imaginary entities - not a single one of them calls any of them 'god' until very late in the game, but you are willing to accept that the term applies to at least some of them. we are classifying on our own in a cross-cultural way. what matters, then, is what the alleged properties of various entities are and where they fit on an external classification.

i vote we start from the general classification scheme everyone here, including you, agrees with - the one that covers at least aphrodite, loki, and krishna - and clarify as best we can where needed.

of course there are. but we don't care what various religions call their imaginary entities - not a single one of them calls any of them 'god' until very late in the game, but you are willing to accept that the term applies to at least some of them. we are classifying on our own in a cross-cultural way. what matters, then, is what the alleged properties of various entities are and where they fit on an external classification.

i vote we start from the general classification scheme everyone here, including you, agrees with - the one that covers at least aphrodite, loki, and krishna - and clarify as best we can where needed.

vote all you want.

you cannot get an agreement out of me. there IS no meaningful definition of god that covers all religion.

except all the use the term gets in religious studies, anthropology, archeology, philosophy, literature, art, history, etc...

as i said before, that is only because we take the claim of "god" at face value and dont try to figure out whether or not it fits some standard generic definition of god.

unless all you want of a definition is "supernatural being" which is as meaningless a definition as can be made.

there IS no meaningful definition of god that covers all religion.

and yet you claim that the concept 'greek gods' is not just gibberish. explain how this is possible.

and the dictionaries seem to at least give it an attempt, and come up with things like "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force". which isn't bad, though needs fleshing out.

and yet you claim that the concept 'greek gods' is not just gibberish. explain how this is possible.

and the dictionaries seem to at least give it an attempt, and come up with things like "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force". which isn't bad, though needs fleshing out.

Yeah, a God doesn't have to be worshipped.

and yet you claim that the concept 'greek gods' is not just gibberish. explain how this is possible.

and the dictionaries seem to at least give it an attempt, and come up with things like "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force". which isn't bad, though needs fleshing out.

That's the dictionary and it's trying not to be biased. I don't think that it needs fleshing out. As for the greek gods everyone has the right to belive what they want in which I do agree that nobody in this thread will come to an agrement on religon.

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

No. Biblical Christianity is monotheistic. James 2:19: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

He is one God but has three parts: a SOUL (the Father), a BODY (the Son, Jesus Christ) and a SPIRIT (called the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost in the New Testament).

There is God, and most people only ...(blah blah seen endless times before)
So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

NO. Read some teology, or something about the history of religions, or even wiki would be enough.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".

This is called "plurale maiestatis".;) Her British Majesty uses it, too.

as i said before, that is only because we take the claim of "god" at face value and dont try to figure out whether or not it fits some standard generic definition of god.

unless all you want of a definition is "supernatural being" which is as meaningless a definition as can be made.


Can you think of a god that does not fit "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"?


Seriously. I don't know a list of gods and goddesses, so I can't think of one that would not fit. If you do know of one by all means. tell.

*glares*

just say "yes, ashmoria, you are right, as always"



gotta add in the moslems too. and the jews but they dont add much to the total.

subtract out the atheists in china and one could probably call it the vast majority.

so what would a hindu use as a defintion of this monotheistic god (without calling him by name)?

im thinking abrahamic religions would go with "creator and manager of the universe" as a start.

Supreme Being.

Creator and underlying spiritual component of the universe, of which we are a part, along with everything.

im having a good enough time and i dont think it would be enjoyable to spend 20 pages pounding out a definition of god whose only use is to diss christianity.
Looks like it might reach that anyway.

also, as I said near the begining, it was not ment to bash or justifiy the religion, simply to discuss its classification of monotheistic over polytheistic. Though I do like the turn the topic took.

and, are you claiming to be nihelm's puppet?


Hes not my puppet.

Biblical Christianity would, to my understanding, by monotheistic. Not only is the holy trinity a composite single deity, but the Bible is rather explicit in its condemnation of "false idols", other gods and the like.

One might also suggest that, given that Christianity shares its roots with the other Abrahamic religions, both of which are monotheistic, this much would suggest that Christianity is similar.

Biblical Christianity would, to my understanding, by monotheistic. Not only is the holy trinity a composite single deity, but the Bible is rather explicit in its condemnation of "false idols", other gods and the like.

the new testament is, at best, inconsistent on the trinity

Yeah, a God doesn't have to be worshipped.

yeah, though it's hard to think of what would directly replace 'worshiped'. maybe something more like 'treated as sacred and worthy of either respect or fear, like those entities that are worshiped'. basically we need to cover gods that don't appear to have had their own cults or direct worship, like loki.

yeah, though it's hard to think of what would directly replace 'worshiped'. maybe something more like 'treated as sacred and worthy of either respect or fear, like those entities that are worshiped'. basically we need to cover gods that don't appear to have had their own cults or direct worship, like loki.

Not to mention concepts like the Demiurge.

yeah, though it's hard to think of what would directly replace 'worshiped'. maybe something more like 'treated as sacred and worthy of either respect or fear, like those entities that are worshiped'. basically we need to cover gods that don't appear to have had their own cults or direct worship, like loki.
Why do you even need to mention worship? why not "any supernatural being portrayed as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"?




I thought loki was a norse god O_o...

No gun smileys in your first post :o ?
Welcome :)

Indeed, this one has potential.

no

HAVE only one god by their own definition.

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


there IS no accepted definition in the wider world.

beside which, monotheism is the largest belief in the world. so if one HAD to claim one definition, it would have to be the jewish/christian/islamic one.

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


For Christians, it is the only God. I would guess that for Muslims, Allah is the only God.

Just because they insist on only calling one particular character in their religion a 'god' doesn't mean it actually is the only one in a sense of "what actually is a god?" - Satan is a god. He's not THE god, he's -A- god. A subgod, if you want.

all those gods are different. we call them "gods" as a shorthand so we dont have to take a multitude of theologies into consideration.

if a religion calls it a god (in english) then its a god as far as non-theology is concerned. THEY define the gods, not us. whatever they or the anthropologist studying them call a god IS a god. we dont check with a defintion and say "nope, thats not good enough to be a god". we take it at face value.

if we do an indepth theological study of a particular religion, we may find that what is called "god" in english doesnt in fact fit with their theology. then those who care will drop the designation.

as i said before, its the specifics that matter. that is held in theology not in etymology.

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


we will not come to a consensus agreement on what constitutes a god.

its not possible

its not binding for the next guy who enters the thread.

its a waste of time.

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


vote all you want.

you cannot get an agreement out of me. there IS no meaningful definition of god that covers all religion.

I vote we heretofore ignore the fact that Ashmoria is in the thread at all, because she's the only one holding us up.

Supreme Being.

Creator and underlying spiritual component of the universe, of which we are a part, along with everything.

That'd be the definition of "creator". 'Deity' encompasses much more than just the one guy that started it all.

there IS no meaningful definition of god that covers all religion.then why is the same word used? does the word bear no meaning?
Is Enki a god? And Enlil? And Inanna?

Omnipotent.So is Q a god?

that explains the "we" and "us" for those that believe in the trinity, but not for those who don't follow that version of christianity. But even if they all followed the trinity, it still leaves the power attributed to the devil today.


Let's not forget the common practice of praying to a saint or to Mary for intersection with the big guy. One religions saint is another's demigod. Also as a point of interest practitioners of Santaria and Vodoon often consider themselves to be Catholic.

The devil is not a god, he is not worshiped,

Since when has he lacked for worshipers?

no they don't. Satanists worship themselves.

There's Satanists and then there's Satanists. Levayen Satanists worship themselves but you have your church of Set, your Lucifarian's (which I may have misspelled) and various other little sects both official and non. This isn't even counting the solitary practitioner . . .

Since when has he lacked for worshipers?

The question was whether Christianity was a monotheistic or polytheistic religion. Christians do not worship the devil, so he would not be considered a god in that religion.

i find the notion of the trinity to be far more problematical than the existence of satan.

while satan might fit SOME religions definition of a god, he does not meet CHRISTIANITY'S definition. therefore christianity is not polytheistic because of the existence of satan.

Wait . . . WTF?

So if something doesn't fit MY definition of a criminal act does that make it legal?

The question was whether Christianity was a monotheistic or polytheistic religion. Christians do not worship the devil, so he would not be considered a god in that religion.But being a god does not depend on worship but on nature. So what is a god?

Wait . . . WTF?
So if something doesn't fit MY definition of a criminal act does that make it legal?In Ashmorialand it does.

Wait . . . WTF?

So if something doesn't fit MY definition of a criminal act does that make it legal?

If your the one making the laws, yes. A religion is whatever the followers say it is. If Christians say they only have one god, they are monotheistic.
But being a god does not depend on worship but on nature. So what is a god?
I disagree. While the existence of a god depends on nature and not worship, we are not talking about how many gods there are. We are talking about how many gods Christianity has, that is, how many gods Christians worship. Almost all Christians claim to worship one god. Unless they are all lying, that means Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

A religion is whatever the followers say it is. If Christians say they only have one god, they are monotheistic.

so wait, let us pretend there is a religion that worships 19 different gods and goddesses, each with their own name and personality and associated rituals and temples and shrines. but the followers of this religion insist that while they worship each of these 19 distinct gods and goddesses, there is only one god. when asked to explain how, they shrug and call it a divine mystery. are you really suggesting that we say, "oh, ok, i guess they are monotheistic after all" rather than "fucking loonies"?

Almost all Christians claim to worship one god. Unless they are all lying, that means Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

there are other options. they may be lying, true. but they may also just be confused about the meaning of words and practices. and there is always the option of them just being stupid. basically, they could be wrong in any of the ways people can normally be wrong.

*snip*I was referring to the devil counting as a god. Just because Christians do not worship him as a god, he nevertheless could well meet the criteria for being called one. His nature, his characteristics, his attributes (and of course his actual existence) define whether he is a god, and not if anybody worships him as such.

If those 19 are aspects of a single being, then yes, it's a monotheistic religion.Like that of ancient Egypt?

so wait, let us pretend there is a religion that worships 19 different gods and goddesses, each with their own name and personality and associated rituals and temples and shrines. but the followers of this religion insist that while they worship each of these 19 distinct gods and goddesses, there is only one god. when asked to explain how, they shrug and call it a divine mystery. are you really suggesting that we say, "oh, ok, i guess they are monotheistic after all" rather than "fucking loonies"?

If those 19 are aspects of a single being, then yes, it's a monotheistic religion. If it not, call it Buddhism.

Like that of ancient Egypt?

I'm not very well versed in ancient Egypt mythology, but where did this come from?

there are other options. they may be lying, true. but they may also just be confused about the meaning of words and practices. and there is always the option of them just being stupid. basically, they could be wrong in any of the ways people can normally be wrong.

That is assuming Christianity is an external set of laws. It's not, it is determined what its practitioners believe. True, people can believe they are practicing mainstream Christianity while in fact they are practicing what most people would call voodoo, but even then it is difficult to say they are wrong. As it is, nearly all Christians say they worship one God, showing that Christianity is monotheistic beyond a reasonable doubt.

oh see? it was one page back

considering that there are a few million mormons and 2 billion other christians im OK with calling the mormons christian heretics.

So you're saying that if polytheists outnumber monotheists by a large enough margin our definition of what a god is will become the correct one?

I'm not very well versed in ancient Egypt mythology, but where did this come from?This concept? I don't know. But most of the 'personalities' came from Mesopotamia (Sumer), although they have changed considerably since then.

If your the one making the laws, yes. A religion is whatever the followers say it is. If Christians say they only have one god, they are monotheistic.

I disagree. While the existence of a god depends on nature and not worship, we are not talking about how many gods there are. We are talking about how many gods Christianity has, that is, how many gods Christians worship. Almost all Christians claim to worship one god. Unless they are all lying, that means Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

Given how many branches of christianity there are, and the fact that to be a satanist is to basicly claim you believe in god but worship the devil, it is still possible the claim christianity is polytheistic if you could make the argument that satanism is a branch of christianity.

That wasn't mine. I rephrased it for clarity.. but it again is one page back.
A god is no doubt playing with us...

Eris probably.

Given how many branches of christianity there are,
You are right, that makes it tricky to say what Christianity is. The spectrum of beliefs also leads to several misconceptions about all groups that call themselves Christians. However, nearly all branches say they are monotheistic.


and the fact that to be a satanist is to basicly claim you believe in god but worship the devil, it is still possible the claim christianity is polytheistic if you could make the argument that satanism is a branch of christianity.

Again, it would be difficult to prove Satanism is not Christianity if its followers said they were Christian. But Christianity means worshiping Christ, which wouldn't work with devil-worship.

A god is no doubt playing with us...Yes, Enki (Yah).

Okay, I think I get what they're saying now.

No matter how wrong they are in their belief that they're monotheistic, it doesn't matter, because enough of them say it so that it must be true to them, but we can still consider them batshit insane because of it.


Did I get that right? I think I did. =)

If those 19 are aspects of a single being, then yes, it's a monotheistic religion.

sounds like weasel words to me. 'aspects of a single being'? what does that even mean? i know what religious types say it means - that the real reality is that these separate beings are really just one - but that is such obvious nonsense that if someone made up the concept today for the first time and tried to sell us on it, we would all point and laugh. this is nonsense that unjustly gets a pass on being nonsense because it is old nonsense. fuck that shit.

besides, they don't even say that in my scenario, they merely claimed it all to be a mystery.

But Christianity means worshiping ChristNo, it means believing in Yeshua being Christ. If you believe in that and yet worship the devil, you must be considered a Christian nonetheless.

Sure.
Figures of Greek myths no longer even worshipped by Greeks.
Next question?

But still worshiped by many people around the globe.

That is assuming Christianity is an external set of laws. It's not, it is determined what its practitioners believe. True, people can believe they are practicing mainstream Christianity while in fact they are practicing what most people would call voodoo, but even then it is difficult to say they are wrong. As it is, nearly all Christians say they worship one God, showing that Christianity is monotheistic beyond a reasonable doubt.

at the very least, everybody is ultimately ruled by logic and empirical evidence, no matter how much they claim otherwise. those are our external rules.

As it is, nearly all Christians say they worship one God,Meaning what exactly? They worship, YHVH, Yah, Elohim/Eloa/Allah, Baal-berit, and a certain Yeshua/Jesus. So which of those justifies the mono- prefix?

Again, it would be difficult to prove Satanism is not Christianity if its followers said they were Christian. But Christianity means worshiping Christ, which wouldn't work with devil-worship.


You do not have to accept christ per se to be a christian. My understanding has always been you just had to believe that christ die for people's sins and was the path to "salvation". satanism (again as I've understood it I could be wrong) was basicly turning your back to god and worshiping the devil.

Thus they are a branch of christianity, they simply follow the other god in the religion. (for a sort of paralle[sp?] the ancient egyptian battle over following the sun or moon god)

Okay, I think I get what they're saying now.

No matter how wrong they are in their belief that they're monotheistic, it doesn't matter, because enough of them say it so that it must be true to them, but we can still consider them batshit insane because of it.


Did I get that right? I think I did. =)

I am fairly certain you did not get that right.

With all due respect to the intelligence of the people on this forum, no one here determines what Christians believe. If you are Christian, you contribute a little to what the "average Christian" believes, just as your income helps determine what the average person makes. But even those in the religion cannot individually change the beliefs of their religion. When we talk about what Christians or Jews or Satanists believe, we are talking about the "average" member of that faith, which we determine based on what Christians we know or have heard say. Now, it is possible to claim that Christians are polytheistic and use the Bible as evidence. However, the average Christian does not see the Bible as evidence for polytheism, and that is what matters.

The only denomination I can think of that has put all of its beliefs in writing, like law, is the Catholic Church. According to 200 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM) in the catechism, God is unique; there is only one God.
Unless anyone can find a conflicting text, I think this seals the deal.

the ancient egyptian battle over following the sun or moon godwhat?

at the very least, everybody is ultimately ruled by logic and empirical evidence, no matter how much they claim otherwise. those are our external rules.
Logic is a system of laws people have created to make sense of the world, because it seems to fit with what we see, hear, smell, etc. However, to claim that we can say, one-hundred per cent, that it is true, is to take a leap of faith.

sounds like weasel words to me. 'aspects of a single being'? what does that even mean? i know what religious types say it means - that the real reality is that these separate beings are really just one - but that is such obvious nonsense that if someone made up the concept today for the first time and tried to sell us on it, we would all point and laugh. this is nonsense that unjustly gets a pass on being nonsense because it is old nonsense. fuck that shit.

besides, they don't even say that in my scenario, they merely claimed it all to be a mystery.

I think it's because that the "god" concept is too paradoxical to be understood by puny humans with their limited intelligence and hubris (akin to explaining Schrodinger's cat to an average shallow person). Therefore the "many in one" concept is something that'd be easier to sell to the masses, and that's also why the "it's all a big mystery" retort when asked about it.

That's my theory anyways.

what?

If I remember right, there was always a kind of swing thing going on with which god was the main god in eygpt. under one pharoh it was the sun god, under another it was the moon god, so on and so forth.

If I remember right, there was always a kind of swing thing going on with which god was the main god in eygpt. under one pharoh it was the sun god, under another it was the moon god, so on and so forth.Where did you get that from?

So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

Nope

also, satanism, as a branch of christianity, has 2 gods.

Albeit an illegal branch of heretics that completely rewritten most of the original tenets?

not all christians are catholic.

Right, but this was the only "legal" document I know of that exists in Christianity, with the exception of the Bible.

not all christians are catholic.that's a matter of opinion :p

Unless anyone can find a conflicting text, I think this seals the deal.


not all christians are catholic.

also, satanism, as a branch of christianity, has 2 gods.

Right, but this was the only "legal" document I know of that exists in Christianity, with the exception of the Bible.the bible is a legal document? how?

Where did you get that from?

history.

granted, it wasn't every pharoh had a different main god, but it did happen.


usually accented by destruction/defacement of temples and building of new ones.

Right, but this was the only "legal" document I know of that exists in Christianity, with the exception of the Bible.it is only "legal" to catholics.


you don't see non-catholic christians looking to the pope as the closest man to god, because that is also a catholic thing.

then there are different versions of the bible, and I am sure satanists hold their own bible.

it is only "legal" to catholics.


you don't see non-catholic christians looking to the pope as the closest man to god, because that is also a catholic thing.

Yes, it is legal to about half of all Christians. Now, as stated earlier, it is impossible to say that every last human being on this planet who considers himself a Christian believes in only one god. What is possible is to look at the Christian zeitgeist, as seen through the media and people one knows personally, look at documents such as this, and make the gander that Christians in general believe in only one God.

Yes, it is legal to about half of all Christians. Now, as stated earlier, it is impossible to say that every last human being on this planet who considers himself a Christian believes in only one god. What is possible is to look at the Christian zeitgeist, as seen through the media and people one knows personally, look at documents such as this, and make the gander that Christians in general believe in only one God.

Yes, but objectively, there are TWO gods, they just all, as a collective, choose to ignore and dislike the second god.

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


Either you accept that Satan is the deity of darkness and evil, or you accept that Satan is but an extension of God, and that God is the deity of darkness and evil as well as everything else - which is to say, God is Satan.

Yes, it is legal to about half of all Christians. Now, as stated earlier, it is impossible to say that every last human being on this planet who considers himself a Christian believes in only one god. What is possible is to look at the Christian zeitgeist, as seen through the media and people one knows personally, look at documents such as this, and make the gander that Christians in general believe in only one God.

believe in one and fear the other. the level of "god" is applied to the devil even if the "majority" of christians do not worship, but fear it.

how could satan be responsible for all evil in the world if he weren't a god? why would he have his own version of a massiah if he weren't a god?














(i am an atheist before anyone starts getting the wrong idea btw XD)

Well said, the bloke, who mentioned the fact that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same god. "Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God". Lebanese Catholics and Egyptian Coptic Christians refer to "Allah" in their services- unsurprisinly- as these are conducted in Arabic. It's not a term from Islam, as many westerners think. The peoples of the Middle East were largely Christian for about 300- 400 years, before Islam was invented. That, too, is now forgotten.

"But what about Hindus?", I hear almost no one ask.

"Do they worship several gods or merely a few different incarnations of the same god?"

Er, dunno, mate.

Surely, a more important question is "Why, in the 21st Century, do people in the supposedly civilised World cling to membership of bizarre eastern cults and myths and practices, which were invented thousands of years ago by groups of loonies, who wandered round deserts or sat on top of mountains?". To an outsider, it's no better than believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or dragging a little, blue blanket round, like Linus in the "Peanuts" cartoons.

The Bible is quite clearly ancient Jewish propaganda- aimed at whatever enemy happened to be around at the time- Egypt, "Babylon" [in reality Assyria], "Canaan", the Phillistines [probably of Greek or Cretan origin] and the Romans- coupled with misogynistic piffle.

If you substitute "Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Somalia, Haiti, the Soviet Union, Syria, Iran again just to be on the safe side, China and- as late as the 1920s- Britain, among others" for all the countries the Israelites wanted to do a bit of good, ol' smitin' with, then the Bible could almost have been written by Donald Rumsfeld, oil companies, defence contractors or Senator John P Commiebasher IV and his Religious Republican and Dixiecrat friends. Still, as St Bobbie said, God's on their side, so they're always right and the other guys had better watch out. "And there shall be whaling and great gnashing of teeth". [Japanese Ministry of Fisheries version of the Bible, Experiments 37, 1- 485]

Anyway, according to the archaeological evidence from Israeli universities [Let's face it, if they can't back up the "God's Chosen People" notion, who can?], Hebrews were simply (mostly southern) Canaanites, who- at some point- adopted monotheism and abandoned the old religion.

There is no evidence to show that the Hebrews were a separate people and plenty to suggest that they weren't. For instance, although the Phoenicians are credited with having devised the first modern alphabet, its precursor was first seen in the Sinai- the area from which the self-proclaimed "Hebrews/ Israelites" sprang.

The Hebrews were not alone in trying to establish a birthright to a particular territory. Another good example is provided by the Gaels, a warrior aristocracy which invaded Ireland in tiny numbers, from about 200 AD onwards. Later Gaelic histories tried to claim that they'd just been on holiday in Spain for a few thousand years and were returning to the land of their forefathers. It was complete nonsense but essential to the invaders, who needed to legitimise their conquest of (and rule over) Ireland.

800 years later, on the other side of the Irish Sea, William the Conqueror tried something similar, by claiming that he was the rightful heir of the Kings of Wessex and that he was, thereby, justified in stealing England and handing it out to his henchmen. [Just think: the English might be liberal sophisticates, like the Danes, the Dutch, the Germans and the Norwegians, today, if only that bunch of feudal, Froggie-speaking Normans had stayed on the right side of the Channel.] There was a very tenuous connection, between Eddie the Confessor and Normandy but there's no doubt that many others had much stronger claims to the English throne than William had.

Throughout history, people [especially ruling elites] have created bogus family trees and written versions of history, which, in terms of accuracy, make the works of J K Rowling look like Newsnight. It was all done to "prove" that they were entitled to hold certain offices or own particular pieces of land. When that isn't enough, they resort to stories, which belong in the National Enquirer, the (sadly defunct) Weekly World News or the Sunday Sport.

"I'm going to kill you, you wife and children but it's not murder, because this big, old fellow with a white beard, who sits on a cloud, said it was perfectly all right. No hard feelings, eh, old chap?"

Let's get back to the original subject- monotheism. The impetus for change among some Canaanites [from poly- to mono-] appears to have come from Egypt, where a decidedly odd Pharaoh [Possibly Akenhaten? Sorry, I can't remember which one it was.] went over to monotheism and built a new capital. His deeply unpopular reforms were reversed after his death. The Egyptian sun-god, Re, was obviously the prototype for Yaweh. As the "Israelites" [minus their leader, Desmond Decker, in those early days] seem to have had their origins in Sinai, it is highly likely that they traded with and worked in Egypt. Therefore, the claim, that ancestors of the Jews built the pyramids, may have a little truth behind it.

The other (non-Hebrew) Canaanites, including the far more advanced and civilised Phoenicians [the ancestors of today's Lebanese population, according to a recent genetic study], stuck with Melqart [called "Baal" in the Bible but "Ba'al" just means "Lord" in Phoenician] and that lot.

As Judaism (a) led directly to the bloodthirsty religion of Christianity :sniper: and (b) helped shape "not-exactly-the-most-peace-loving philosophy of all time" :mp5:, Islam [Christ, a Jew, is both the Christians' Messiah and the second most-important prophet in Islam.] and (c) has caused the odd war or seventy itself :gundge: , I can't help thinking that, on the whole, it was rather a bad idea.

By Zeus and mighty Athena, they should have converted to the Hellenistic faith. Now, that's what I call a proper religion!

Well said, the bloke, who mentioned the fact that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the same god. "Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God". Lebanese Catholics and Egyptian Coptic Christians refer to "Allah" in their services- unsurprisinly- as these are conducted in Arabic. It's not a term from Islam, as many westerners think. The peoples of the Middle East were largely Christian for about 300- 400 years, before Islam was invented. That, too, is now forgotten.

"But what about Hindus?", I hear almost no one ask.

"Do they worship several gods or merely a few different incarnations of the same god?"

Er, dunno, mate.

Surely, a more important question is "Why, in the 21st Century, do people in the supposedly civilised World cling to membership of bizarre eastern cults and myths and practices, which were invented thousands of years ago by groups of loonies, who wandered round deserts or sat on top of mountains?". To an outsider, it's no better than believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or dragging a little, blue blanket round, like Linus in the "Peanuts" cartoons.

The Bible is quite clearly ancient Jewish propaganda- aimed at whatever enemy happened to be around at the time- Egypt, "Babylon" [in reality Assyria], "Canaan", the Phillistines [probably of Greek or Cretan origin] and the Romans- coupled with misogynistic piffle.

If you substitute "Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Somalia, Haiti, the Soviet Union, Syria, Iran again just to be on the safe side, China and- as late as the 1920s- Britain, among others" for all the countries the Israelites wanted to do a bit of good, ol' smitin' with, then the Bible could almost have been written by Donald Rumsfeld, oil companies, defence contractors or Senator John P Commiebasher IV and his Religious Republican and Dixiecrat friends. Still, as St Bobbie said, God's on their side, so they're always right and the other guys had better watch out. "And there shall be whaling and great gnashing of teeth". [Japanese Ministry of Fisheries version of the Bible, Experiments 37, 1- 485]

Anyway, according to the archaeological evidence from Israeli universities [Let's face it, if they can't back up the "God's Chosen People" notion, who can?], Hebrews were simply (mostly southern) Canaanites, who- at some point- adopted monotheism and abandoned the old religion.

There is no evidence to show that the Hebrews were a separate people and plenty to suggest that they weren't. For instance, although the Phoenicians are credited with having devised the first modern alphabet, its precursor was first seen in the Sinai- the area from which the self-proclaimed "Hebrews/ Israelites" sprang.

The Hebrews were not alone in trying to establish a birthright to a particular territory. Another good example is provided by the Gaels, a warrior aristocracy which invaded Ireland in tiny numbers, from about 200 AD onwards. Later Gaelic histories tried to claim that they'd just been on holiday in Spain for a few thousand years and were returning to the land of their forefathers. It was complete nonsense but essential to the invaders, who needed to legitimise their conquest of (and rule over) Ireland.

800 years later, on the other side of the Irish Sea, William the Conqueror tried something similar, by claiming that he was the rightful heir of the Kings of Wessex and that he was, thereby, justified in stealing England and handing it out to his henchmen. [Just think: the English might be liberal sophisticates, like the Danes, the Dutch, the Germans and the Norwegians, today, if only that bunch of feudal, Froggie-speaking Normans had stayed on the right side of the Channel.] There was a very tenuous connection, between Eddie the Confessor and Normandy but there's no doubt that many others had much stronger claims to the English throne than William had.

Throughout history, people [especially ruling elites] have created bogus family trees and written versions of history, which, in terms of accuracy, make the works of J K Rowling look like Newsnight. It was all done to "prove" that they were entitled to hold certain offices or own particular pieces of land. When that isn't enough, they resort to stories, which belong in the National Enquirer, the (sadly defunct) Weekly World News or the Sunday Sport.

"I'm going to kill you, you wife and children but it's not murder, because this big, old fellow with a white beard, who sits on a cloud, said it was perfectly all right. No hard feelings, eh, old chap?"

Let's get back to the original subject- monotheism. The impetus for change among some Canaanites [from poly- to mono-] appears to have come from Egypt, where a decidedly odd Pharaoh [Possibly Akenhaten? Sorry, I can't remember which one it was.] went over to monotheism and built a new capital. His deeply unpopular reforms were reversed after his death. The Egyptian sun-god, Re, was obviously the prototype for Yaweh. As the "Israelites" [minus their leader, Desmond Decker, in those early days] seem to have had their origins in Sinai, it is highly likely that they traded with and worked in Egypt. Therefore, the claim, that ancestors of the Jews built the pyramids, may have a little truth behind it.

The other (non-Hebrew) Canaanites, including the far more advanced and civilised Phoenicians [the ancestors of today's Lebanese population, according to a recent genetic study], stuck with Melqart [called "Baal" in the Bible but "Ba'al" just means "Lord" in Phoenician] and that lot.

As Judaism (a) led directly to the bloodthirsty religion of Christianity :sniper: and (b) helped shape "not-exactly-the-most-peace-loving philosophy of all time" :mp5:, Islam [Christ, a Jew, is both the Christians' Messiah and the second most-important prophet in Islam.] and (c) has caused the odd war or seventy itself :gundge: , I can't help thinking that, on the whole, it was rather a bad idea.

By Zeus and mighty Athena, they should have converted to the Hellenistic faith. Now, that's what I call a proper religion!

The impetus for change among some Canaanites [from poly- to mono-] appears to have come from Egypt, where a decidedly odd Pharaoh [Possibly Akenhaten? Sorry, I can't remember which one it was.] went over to monotheism and built a new capital. But the change from poly- to monotheism was only made as late as the Persian era (after the 'babylonian captivity'), maybe even later, when Jews had already supplanted everything that had probably been Israelite before.
BTW when Akhenaten started his little heresy adventure the Israelites had been out of Egypt for centuries.

There is God, and most people only think of him/her/it as the only God of the Christian religion, but with all the power atributed(sp?) to the Devil today one could also make the claim that he/she/it is also a God.


The you have things in the Bible like thou shall have no other God before me. thou shall have no other god or no other god but me. There could be other Gods.


Another thing, if I remember right, is that in Genesis it uses "we" and "us" rather than "I" or "me".


So is it possible that Christianity is a polytheistic religion rather than a monotheistic one?

1. The amount of "power" attributed to the Devil, Satan, Lucifer, whatever, varies greatly between the many, many Christian denominations. Some do not even believe in the existence of such an entity, and the people who actually worship that entity do not generally consider themselves to be Christians.

2. You seem to have poor understanding of the language used here. "thou shalt have no gods but me" is a very important phrase in that it means that the people of Israel were forbidden to venerate or worship any other gods. It does not state whether or not those gods are real, from either the human point of view or God's.

3. Two options here. Either God is using the so-called royal We, or, owing to the revised Christian cannon of the New Testament, God is referring to the trinity, which, if you've read said New Testament, you would know is considered to be co-eternal with God Himself.

4. No. Besides, nothing in your argument is specific to Christianity; why not ask if Judaism is not polytheistic? I would say you need a lot more study of both orthodox Christian dogma and the most basic beliefs of Christians.

<Snipped this text has been>

By Zeus and mighty Athena, they should have converted to the Hellenistic faith. Now, that's what I call a proper religion!

In the name of Odin, I disagree. Those who wish to follow the true religion will seek the golden doors of Valhalla.

In the name of Odin, I disagree. Those who wish to follow the true religion will seek the golden doors of Valhalla.

...good thing that Odin only asks you to die gloriously in battle.

Yes, but objectively, there are TWO gods, they just all, as a collective, choose to ignore and dislike the second god.

deity

noun
any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force


Either you accept that Satan is the deity of darkness and evil, or you accept that Satan is but an extension of God, and that God is the deity of darkness and evil as well as everything else - which is to say, God is Satan.

Please. You clearly have neither read Paradise Lost, nor have any idea of the depth and complexity of the Judeo-Christian tradition in relation to the entity of Satan.

So I'll make this quite easy for you. The easiest way to disassemble the childish syllogism you present is as follows:

You make the assumption that God and Satan are roughly equal in terms of power, influence on human life, knowledge, foresight, understanding, wisdom, any other trait you wish to ascribe to a deity. Unfortunately, in the Christian tradition, comparing the status of the two entities is a mistake of divide-by-zero proportions. It's not even a you-versus Vernon Davis blocking drill, ant-versus blue whale, a single up-quark versus all matter in the known universe type of disparity. God, in the Christian belief, is the most omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity conceivable, so much so that it is, in fact, impossible for a human mind to conceive of the power, glory, etc. that is God. Satan, on the other hand, is at best a fallen #2 man and at worst an evil hack. Read the book of Job for Pete's sake. Satan can't even torture one human with some mundane, wordly horrors without God's specific say so, and guess what? All that torturing fits into God's plan. You can't beat God, you can't even know God. Nothing the universe can even be considered to be on God's level. So no. Even those Christians who believe in Satan, which is far from all of them, which you seem to be forgetting, would tell you that he is God's evil twin or other such nonsense.

...good thing that Odin only asks you to die gloriously in battle.

That, Vandal, is precisely why I converted to the Norse religion. It just made sense.