NationStates Jolt Archive

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

though one wonders what they then make of a significant portion of the jeebus story...

though one wonders what they then make of a significant portion of the jeebus story...

the devil isn't a significant portion of the Jesus story now.......is it?

the devil isn't a significant portion of the Jesus story now.......is it?

If you're talking about the amount of airtime it gets in comparison to other things, probably not.

But I've always thought that the encounter between Jesus and Satan during which Satan tempts him was a pretty significant story for other reasons, and there were repeated mentions in the gospels of casting out demons, those naughty minions of Satan.

the devil isn't a significant portion of the Jesus story now.......is it?


the only part that i can recall the devil talking with jesus was when he tried to turn jesus from god.....




but if jesus is god (and wouldn't have satan known this since he knew god personally[see Job and whatever book he fell in] and knew jesus was the son of god?) how could he have ever been turn against himself?

If you're talking about the amount of airtime it gets in comparison to other things, probably not.

But I've always thought that the encounter between Jesus and Satan during which Satan tempts him was a pretty significant story for other reasons, and there were repeated mentions in the gospels of casting out demons, those naughty minions of Satan.

well, yeah, that, but I got the impression he was talking about the "end" of the Jesus story, the gory nailing part.

well, yeah, that, but I got the impression he was talking about the "end" of the Jesus story, the gory nailing part.
really?

i thought he was refering to if they vary so much on the devil, how much else varies to an insane degree...

If you're talking about the amount of airtime it gets in comparison to other things, probably not.

But I've always thought that the encounter between Jesus and Satan during which Satan tempts him was a pretty significant story for other reasons, and there were repeated mentions in the gospels of casting out demons, those naughty minions of Satan.

that'd be the stuff

If you're talking about the amount of airtime it gets in comparison to other things, probably not.

But I've always thought that the encounter between Jesus and Satan during which Satan tempts him was a pretty significant story for other reasons, and there were repeated mentions in the gospels of casting out demons, those naughty minions of Satan.

I only know of that from "The Last Temptation of Christ." It's only an awesome movie about Christianity because of a David Bowie cameo *nod*

18 pages of atheists (mostly) arguing about religious jargon definitions. :D I love it. What was that Ashmoria said about not being able to define a religion's beliefs by using words from outside the religion -- or other words to the effect that people should try to avoid situations that will make them look like they don't know what they're talking about? ;)

Anyhoo... I'm going to offer my contribution to this claptrap encyclopedia:

1) "God" is a problematical term because it has so many different meanings that cultural/anthropological/ecumenical studies/papers/whatever always have to be liberally festooned with footnotes. However, I disagree with Ashmoria that this makes it impossible to have a meaningful conversation about it. It just means we must have a slow, pedantic, excessively careful conversation about it, liberally festooned with footnotes. If we do not take care to clarify frequently what we mean by "god" any time we happen to use the word, we may easily fall into the trap of assuming "god" to mean whatever we believe in and, therefore, claiming other beliefs to be invalid.

2) Based on (1) above, the only question about this thread is whether we care enough about the topic to go to that much trouble.

3) In the interests of full disclosure, I'm a polytheist, so my definition of "god" will be different from a monotheist's definition of the word. In fact, to me, in my belief system, that word has little meaning or value and I seldom use it except for convenience. Because of this, I am used to going to the kind of trouble described above when discussing religion, but even after 18 pages, I'm still not sure I want to do it for this thread.

4) The definition of "god" I typically use is as follows: A being or entity considered to have power over or be a personification of some force, phenomenon, or perceived power in the world/universe. This can be anything from "rain" and "the law" to "everything."

4) It must be pointed out that not all supernatural entities are considered gods in all circumstances. In some religions, the dead are considered divine and are worshipped, but in other religions that may believe in afterlife and/or ghosts, there is no divinity attached. So the mere existence of a Satan spirit in Christian belief does not automatically imply a divine or god-like status to Satan. It merely assumes that supernatural entities exist within the world dominated by God, in their beliefs.

5) PLEASE NOTE, I do not believe you can determine what type of religion you are looking at merely by what they consider their god/gods to be. "Polytheist" and "monotheist" are also problematical terms. Do those words describe worship or belief? The two are not the same. It is perfectly possible to believe something exists but not worship it.

Is a religion polytheist because its followers believe many gods exist, or because they actually worship many gods?

Is a religion monotheist because its followers believe only one god exists or because they only worship one god?

The modern monotheist religions believe that only one god exists, but other religions -- for instance the aforementioned Ahknaten's cult of Aten -- have said that of all gods, only one matters and is worth worshipping. So, was Ahknaten a monotheist or a polytheist? Scholarly debate rages on that question.

6) To me the OP question of this thread is trying to analyze the nature of a religion while completely ignoring its historical context. The question of whether Christianity is monotheist or polytheist is undermined by the question of cross-cultural influence upon Christianity. Is Christianity a polytheist belief system, or is it a monotheist belief system the form of which has been influenced by its imposition upon polytheistic cultures over time? In other words, are there polytheistic elements within Christianity and do those elements define the religion?

My view is yes and no. Yes, they are there. No, they do not define the religion, any more that the shoebox defines the shoe. You can determine this by applying a kind of Occam's razor to Christian belief and stripping away everything that is not essential to being a Christian. You will quickly see that it is not necessary to believe in the polytheistic elements in order to be a Christian, ergo, they are not defining elements of Christianity.*

So why are they there? Simply because the people who were converted believed in them, and the nature of those earlier beliefs was that they were not canceled out by Christianity and could be attached to it. For old time's sake, as it were.

So what conclusion can we reach from this?

Possibly that Christianity is a monotheist religion that many polytheistic people practice.

Or possibly that believing there is only one god does not preclude one from believing that other powerful supernatural beings exist, even though they are not gods.






(*EDIT: Again in the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that my primary experience of Christianity is through the United Congregationalist Church, who were one of our neighborhood churches. Not my family's church; my family was too non-religious to have a family church. The Congregationalists are a Protestant sect that sought to do exactly what I describe -- strip away all non-essentials to get at the root of "Christianity." At their most strident, historically, they stripped away non-essentials such as Christmas or even going to church at all.)

brahman isn't really a god per se

definitely not in the abrahamic sense of God.

Advaita is really a totally diiferent concept of spirituality. I personally feel that many weak atheists and agnostics would take to vedanta if expose to it.

though one wonders what they then make of a significant portion of the jeebus story...

The same thing people make about a lot of human stories. That there is no "Devil," "Satan," or any other powerful, evil being dedicated to the corruption, downfall and punishment of mankind; that there is, rather, a dark side within all humans, the temptation to perform evil acts that may have any of the consequences I just mentioned.

Others believe that while such a being exists, that being does not have any power, influence, or direct interaction with the mortal, physical world. Some believe that if there is a Devil, the Devil resides exclusively in Hell. Of course, some Christians don't believe in Hell either. Some believe in one or the other, both, or none. All Christians believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It's just that they don't always agree on what the precise relationship is among those three.

See now why the argument that Christianity is a polytheism because of the belief of Satan is such a foolish one?

6) To me the OP question of this thread is trying to analyze the nature of a religion while completely ignoring its historical context. The question of whether Christianity is monotheist or polytheist is undermined by the question of cross-cultural influence upon Christianity. Is Christianity a polytheist belief system, or is it a monotheist belief system the form of which has been influenced by its imposition upon polytheistic cultures over time? In other words, are there polytheistic elements within Christianity and do those elements define the religion?

My view is yes and no. Yes, they are there. No, they do not define the religion, any more that the shoebox defines the shoe. You can determine this by applying a kind of Occam's razor to Christian belief and stripping away everything that is not essential to being a Christian. You will quickly see that it is not necessary to believe in the polytheistic elements in order to be a Christian, ergo, they are not defining elements of Christianity.*



That was intelligent, well thought-out, cogent, and succinct. Best post so far. It's like what I've been trying and failing to say, minus the condescension and wordiness. Well played.

The same thing people make about a lot of human stories. That there is no "Devil," "Satan," or any other powerful, evil being dedicated to the corruption, downfall and punishment of mankind; that there is, rather, a dark side within all humans, the temptation to perform evil acts that may have any of the consequences I just mentioned.

Others believe that while such a being exists, that being does not have any power, influence, or direct interaction with the mortal, physical world. Some believe that if there is a Devil, the Devil resides exclusively in Hell. Of course, some Christians don't believe in Hell either. Some believe in one or the other, both, or none. All Christians believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It's just that they don't always agree on what the precise relationship is among those three.

See now why the argument that Christianity is a polytheism because of the belief of Satan is such a foolish one?

no. the fact that different types of christianity exist has no bearing on anything, other than opening up the possibility that there is one or two that gives up on the bible entirely and can therefore be monotheistic.

Iv'e got a question. Can god create a rock that he cant push ?http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif
Question

4) The definition of "god" I typically use is as follows: A being or entity considered to have power over or be a personification of some force, phenomenon, or perceived power in the world/universe. This can be anything from "rain" and "the law" to "everything."

4) It must be pointed out that not all supernatural entities are considered gods in all circumstances. In some religions, the dead are considered divine and are worshipped, but in other religions that may believe in afterlife and/or ghosts, there is no divinity attached. So the mere existence of a Satan spirit in Christian belief does not automatically imply a divine or god-like status to Satan. It merely assumes that supernatural entities exist within the world dominated by God, in their beliefs.



Not quite as solid here. Satan is most often considered to be a personification of, and have power over, evil. Thus, while Satan is not the final authority over evil (that still rests with God), Satan fits your definition of a god. Admittedly, and as I have been saying, Christian belief on the subject of Satan is varied to say the least, but your definition means that many Christians (in fact, many people of all religions) would be said to believe that Satan is a god when, if asked, they would certainly respond that Satan is not.

That was intelligent, well thought-out, cogent, and succinct. Best post so far. It's like what I've been trying and failing to say, minus the condescension and wordiness. Well played.
We aim to please. :)

Not quite as solid here. Satan is most often considered to be a personification of, and have power over, evil. Thus, while Satan is not the final authority over evil (that still rests with God), Satan fits your definition of a god. Admittedly, and as I have been saying, Christian belief on the subject of Satan is varied to say the least, but your definition means that many Christians (in fact, many people of all religions) would be said to believe that Satan is a god when, if asked, they would certainly respond that Satan is not.
1) The bolded parts are the qualifiers that undermine your argument even as you make it. You are trying to make a statement about the beliefs of Christians even as you acknowledge that your own statement is often not applicable. Alternatively, perhaps you are trying to undermine my statement by making an argument that you show not to be applicable to the subject persons.

2) I had hoped that I made it clear that I was talking about the definition of "god" that I use within my beliefs and thoughts. I do not believe that anything in my post implied that I was applying that definition to other people's belief systems. I was just putting it out there in case anyone wanted to start addressing the definition issue. But if you read my post again, you should see that nowhere did I make any attempt to state or define what anyone else thinks a god is.

3) Your argument is also disingenuous -- perhaps accidentally so -- as you are connecting two different and distinct points from my multi-pointed post. My reference to what I think a god is has nothing at all to do with my suggestions about how it may be possible for Christians to believe that Satan exists and has some power but is still not a god. "God" in this case, being their idea of a god, whatever that may be.

4) I suggest you read the first paragraph of my post, in which I talked about the importance of keeping such details as this as clear as possible.

but your definition means that many Christians (in fact, many people of all religions) would be said to believe that Satan is a god when, if asked, they would certainly respond that Satan is not.

though this is because it deals with their personal mythological system. a better way to do it would be to describe the character of satan as being a supernatural entity in some other culture's religion and ask them if that character sounds godish in that context.

though this is because it deals with their personal mythological system. a better way to do it would be to describe the character of satan as being a supernatural entity in some other culture's religion and ask them if that character sounds godish in that context.

One of my points partially agrees with this. It was the bit about cultural influences -- or in other words, if we will allow, the influence of personal mythological systems -- upon the forms of Christianity.

But a problem you'd run into with your suggestion of putting Satan into a different cultural context and asking "them" - I presume you mean Christians - whether he sounds like a god to them, is that you'd be getting caught up in the same semantical problem we've been having in this thread: What does "god" mean?

It is perfectly possible for people to use the same word with totally conflicting meanings, in different contexts. So "god" referring to the god they worship/believe in will mean something different from "god" referring to something someone else believes in but they think is false.

So your Christians might say, "Yes, that sounds like a god," but they do not mean it sounds like God (note the capitalization).

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

try pagan:)

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.

you have math fuzzier than dubya satan wasn't an angel, but a spirit of fire, with independant thought I might add. He didn't make demands, yet refused to obey when god ordered all to bow before adam. :cool:

[QUOTE=Khadgar;12927536]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.[/QUOTE

excellent point :)

1) The bolded parts are the qualifiers that undermine your argument even as you make it. You are trying to make a statement about the beliefs of Christians even as you acknowledge that your own statement is often not applicable. Alternatively, perhaps you are trying to undermine my statement by making an argument that you show not to be applicable to the subject persons.

2) I had hoped that I made it clear that I was talking about the definition of "god" that I use within my beliefs and thoughts. I do not believe that anything in my post implied that I was applying that definition to other people's belief systems. I was just putting it out there in case anyone wanted to start addressing the definition issue. But if you read my post again, you should see that nowhere did I make any attempt to state or define what anyone else thinks a god is.

3) Your argument is also disingenuous -- perhaps accidentally so -- as you are connecting two different and distinct points from my multi-pointed post. My reference to what I think a god is has nothing at all to do with my suggestions about how it may be possible for Christians to believe that Satan exists and has some power but is still not a god. "God" in this case, being their idea of a god, whatever that may be.

4) I suggest you read the first paragraph of my post, in which I talked about the importance of keeping such details as this as clear as possible.

Ouch. I guess I was just trying to point out that your operational definition of a god seems to lack a certain specificity. Point four in your argument happened to be a convenient example and related to a point I've been discussing. Mea culpa.

Oh, and disingenuous? Really?

1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive; as, disingenuous conduct or schemes.
2. Not ingenuous; wanting in noble candor or frankness; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.
3. Assuming a pose of naivete—to make a point, or for deception.

Check the vocab, big guy.

you have math fuzzier than dubya satan wasn't an angel, but a spirit of fire, with independant thought I might add. He didn't make demands, yet refused to obey when god ordered all to bow before adam. :cool:


Where are you getting this? Spirit of fire? Hogwash.

Satan comes from Shaitan--Aramaic for 'adversary,' a Jewish concept that only originated after the Babylonian exile. Before that time, there was no concept of a supreme evil being, a sort of lesser adversary of God.

The story of Lucifer, Latin for "Light-bearer" concerns a prominent archangel, seraph, or cherub (biblical sources are not in agreement) who, motivated by pride, led a rebellion against God, was defeated, and was cast out of heaven.

The two eventually became conflated, resulting in the modern mythology of the Devil.

no. the fact that different types of christianity exist has no bearing on anything, other than opening up the possibility that there is one or two that gives up on the bible entirely and can therefore be monotheistic.

Fine. Some denominations believe in Satan, ascribing to him varying levels of power and influence. His mythology is similarly varied. Yet none of those denominations believe that Satan is on the same plane as God, in terms of power and influence. So one cannot call Satan a deity within he belief structure of either a part of Christianity or the whole. My point still stands.

though this is because it deals with their personal mythological system. a better way to do it would be to describe the character of satan as being a supernatural entity in some other culture's religion and ask them if that character sounds godish in that context.

But, of course, that wouldn't change whether that person considers Satan a god within their own faith, which is the whole point.

Where are you getting this? Spirit of fire? Hogwash.

Satan comes from Shaitan--Aramaic for 'adversary,' a Jewish concept that only originated after the Babylonian exile. Before that time, there was no concept of a supreme evil being, a sort of lesser adversary of God.

The story of Lucifer concerns a prominent archangel, seraph, or cherub (biblical sources are not in agreement) who, motivated by pride, led a rebellion against God, was defeated, and was cast out of heaven.

The two eventually became conflated, resulting in the modern mythology of the Devil.

O.K. Socrates direct me to the passage where they refer to satan as an angel. And while we're at it, tell me why god and his #2 sqabbled? and mr. according to hoyle explain christmas, or even easter for that matter.

i jus wwannaa kill stuff:sniper:

Definitely polytheistic.

All the angels, saints, Jesus, holy spirit and satan are seperately worshipped and/or recognized like they were divine beings.

Christianity also recognizes the existence of "false gods" (just read Exodus..or skeptic's annotated bible, take your pick :D).

But, of course, that wouldn't change whether that person considers Satan a god within their own faith, which is the whole point.

no, what they consider him under their own idiosyncratic definitions doesn't matter in the slightest. what matters is what sort of entity satan is when examined objectively.

no, what they consider him under their own idiosyncratic definitions doesn't matter in the slightest. what matters is what sort of entity satan is when examined objectively.

That's just the point. I'm not sure such a huge concept like 'what determines a deity' can be dealt with objectively. Everyone has a belief structure and it is impossible to step outside it to examine what someone with another belief structure thinks or feels. Case in point: this thread. Even the atheists can't agree. Thus, I would say that in this case, not in all cases, the dogma of the faith itself should be the deciding factor.

O.K. Socrates direct me to the passage where they refer to satan as an angel. And while we're at it, tell me why god and his #2 sqabbled? and mr. according to hoyle explain christmas, or even easter for that matter.

Let's go easy first:

Christmas: Jesus Christ's birth celebrated by Christians. Traditionally Dec. 25 See Gospel of Luke for details.

Easter: Jesus Christ's resurrection from death celebrated by Christians. Traditionally the Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

Not sure why you wanted me to explain those liturgical holidays. Were you confused as to which was which? No matter, we shall forge ahead.

"Satan," in his role as 'adversary/accuser' is referred to in:
Zechariah 3:1-2
I Chronicles 21:1
Revelation 12:7-9

Satan is also considered to be the infamous serpent that tempts Eve, as well as the accuser of Job in the Book of Job, and also tempts Jesus during the latter's sojourn in the wilderness. See the books of Genesis and Job as well as the Gospels.

"Lucifer," the angel, is referred to as such in:
Ezekiel 28:14
Isaiah 14:12-14

Jesus stated that he witnessed "Lucifer" being thrown down from heaven after his defeat in Luke 10:18

While you are correct in stating that it is believed that one cause for the rebellion of Lucifer was the elevation of mankind above the angels, 'pride' or 'hubris' are cited reasons in the Bible.

As I said before, the two stories became conflated during the rise of Christianity, and further influenced by the texts Paradise Lost, written by John Milton, and the Commedia or Divine Comedy, written by Dante Alighieri.

Now then, Plato, since I've obliged you and listed my sources, why don't you tell me where you stumbled upon this "spirit of fire" claptrap. Sounds like it came from a hack Satanist website.

Iv'e got a question. Can god create a rock that he cant push ?http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif
Question

Dude, are you serious? The stone paradox has been done to death. There are a handful of arguments as to why it is fallacious, but here's mine for funsies. Human logic does not and cannot define, describe, or constrain the actions and/or state of being of God.

Dude, are you serious? The stone paradox has been done to death. There are a handful of arguments as to why it is fallacious, but here's mine for funsies. Human logic does not and cannot define, describe, or constrain the actions and/or state of being of God.

well that's a nonstandard answer. the usual one is that god can do anything that is logically possible, because to require that he be able to do more is to require nonsense.

well that's a nonstandard answer. the usual one is that god can do anything that is logically possible, because to require that he be able to do more is to require nonsense.
Which, you know, religion allows for.

Why are you even bothering in this thread, guy?
Believers don't think about their faith rationally. That's what makes them Believers.
You'll only frustrate yourself.

Which, you know, religion allows for.

only stupid religion. the smarter religionists at least try to make the nonsense somewhat internally consistent, which is why the stone paradox (and things like it) actually has gotten extensive treatment by the major thinkers of omnipotent deity-based religions.

Why are you even bothering in this thread, guy?
Believers don't think about their faith rationally.

don't does not imply shouldn't

That's just the point. I'm not sure such a huge concept like 'what determines a deity' can be dealt with objectively. Everyone has a belief structure and it is impossible to step outside it to examine what someone with another belief structure thinks or feels.

except we have no problem at all talking about greek gods, etc. so clearly we are working with some general conception of 'god' that allows us to coherently call things outside our own cultural background by a generic term that was not used within that other belief structure and have it make sense. so i'm not seeing the impossibility.

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?
*Is aware it's been done ...*
Erm, "yes" is the easiest answer, methinks.

don't does not imply shouldn't
As long as a particular faith isn't oppressive to those outside its membership, as long as it doesn't somehow seriously impair the ability of its members to leave the religion, and as long as it doesn't seriously violate the human rights of its members, atheists should leave alone. I think we could gain a lot more respect if we did so.

As long as a particular faith isn't oppressive to those outside its membership, as long as it doesn't somehow seriously impair the ability of its members to leave the religion, and as long as it doesn't seriously violate the human rights of its members, atheists should leave alone. I think we could gain a lot more respect if we did so.

i don't want respect. i want them to learn to think rationally. maybe one day one of them might come up with a plausible argument for the existence of god - that'd be pretty neat.

i don't want respect. i want them to learn to think rationally. maybe one day one of them might come up with a plausible argument for the existence of god - that'd be pretty neat.
Most people don't think rationally about a lot more things than religion. Besides, for them, faith is enough. Can't you just leave it at that?

First off, Congratulations! we reached 20 pages!




Second, In the end, we agree that depending on how much power a person (or sect) attributes to the devil, they can be a monotheistic christian or a polytheistic christian?




Third, An all-powerful god I can understand. It the all-knowing one that can allow free-will I don't get...

First off, Congratulations! we reached 20 pages!

15 for me. Keep going, buddy.

Third, An all-powerful god I can understand. It the all-knowing one that can allow free-will I don't get...

just because I know something doesn't mean I effect it in any way. I know that if I drop a marble in a glass of water then it will displace the water, it doesn't mean I displaced the water. I know that 2+2=4 I didn't make it equal 4, it just does.

It's irrational to believe that you know something that cannot be known.

Isn't that the definition of religious belief.

i don't want respect. i want them to learn to think rationally. maybe one day one of them might come up with a plausible argument for the existence of god - that'd be pretty neat.

It's irrational to believe that you know something that cannot be known.

Isn't that the definition of religious belief.

Isn't that the definition of any belief? If you say there is no God you are just as irrational as I am, the only true rational ones are the agnostics, but most of them really don't care enough to bother with people who claim to believe anything anyway.

Second, In the end, we agree that depending on how much power a person (or sect) attributes to the devil, they can be a monotheistic christian or a polytheistic christian?

.

no we cant. that would require a sect to actually give god status to satan. a powerful satan cannot transform a monotheistic religion into a polytheistic one.

15 for me. Keep going, buddy.
must have a differnt post count per page. its at 20 for me.

just because I know something doesn't mean I effect it in any way. I know that if I drop a marble in a glass of water then it will displace the water, it doesn't mean I displaced the water. I know that 2+2=4 I didn't make it equal 4, it just does.
huh? I am really not getting what you are trying to say.

It's irrational to believe that you know something that cannot be known.
No offence, but I but into that about as much as the "god works in mysterious ways" excuse.

no we cant. that would require a sect to actually give god status to satan. a powerful satan cannot transform a monotheistic religion into a polytheistic one.
Already pointed out that you could argue that satanism is a branch of christianity.

Already pointed out that you could argue that satanism is a branch of christianity.

lol

i suppose you are free to but neither christians nor satanists will agree with you so you are a bit silly in that argument.

it would be akin to suggesting that islam is a branch of christianity. its arguable from a certain pont of view but a silly conclusion.

lol

i suppose you are free to but neither christians nor satanists will agree with you so you are a bit silly in that argument.

it would be akin to suggesting that islam is a branch of christianity. its arguable from a certain pont of view but a silly conclusion.

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.

exactly how is that like claiming islam is a branch of christianity? don't they think that Jesus was a prophet and not the massiah. to them that was Mohammad[sp?] (or was he the 2nd coming?)?

huh? I am really not getting what you are trying to say.
you said that an all knowing God is incompatible with free will, I merely tried to explain that you can have knowledge of something and not be directly responsible for the outcome.


No offence, but I but into that about as much as the "god works in mysterious ways" excuse.
you think it's rational to believe things you cannot know? it's rational to believe that there is a trans dimensional wormhole in my daughter's closet that cartoon characters pass through, even though I have no proof of it?



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.
One could say with that definition that the devil himself is a Christian.

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)

there is no parallel in this situation, because the devil is not God. God in Christianity is God on high above all others, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, there is none like Him and none whom can compare. Saying the devil is godlike is a major misunderstanding of Christianity.

you think it's rational to believe things you cannot know? it's rational to believe that there is a trans dimensional wormhole in my daughter's closet that cartoon characters pass through, even though I have no proof of it?

Star Trek + Scooby Doo + late night candy = bad.

Star Trek + Scooby Doo + late night candy = bad.

yep. That's exactly what happened. She had to sleep with her phaser so that she could "stun" Scooby should he pop back through.

yep. That's exactly what happened. She had to sleep with her phaser so that she could "stun" Scooby should he pop back through.

Your children need to upgrade to lightsabers. They are cooler.

Your children need to upgrade to lightsabers. They are cooler.

I bought them some, they don't play with them..........so more toys for me!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/69de/?cpg=froogle

you said that an all knowing God is incompatible with free will, I merely tried to explain that you can have knowledge of something and not be directly responsible for the outcome.
To be all knowing you could never be wrong. If you were wrong, you didn't know.

If god knows all that means he know all of has happened is happening and will happen.

For a being to know all that will happen, free-will cannot apply. We may have the illusion of choice, but an illusion of choice is not choice.


you think it's rational to believe things you cannot know? it's rational to believe that there is a trans dimensional wormhole in my daughter's closet that cartoon characters pass through, even though I have no proof of it?

I must have misread something. I thought you were using a copout(sp). Those things tick me off to no end.

"God has a plan" "God works in mysterious ways" "God is beyond our knowledge"




One could say with that definition that the devil himself is a Christian.

And?


There is no parallel in this situation, because the devil is not God. God in Christianity is God on high above all others, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, there is none like Him and none whom can compare. Saying the devil is godlike is a major misunderstanding of Christianity. the parallel I was going for was how people shift which god is in control of their beliefs.

I bought them some, they don't play with them..........so more toys for me!

http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/warfare/69de/?cpg=froogle
The Darth Maul one is huge and made of awesome. Too bad it's $200.

To be all knowing you could never be wrong. If you were wrong, you didn't know.

If god knows all that means he know all of has happened is happening and will happen.

For a being to know all that will happen, free-will cannot apply. We may have the illusion of choice, but an illusion of choice is not choice.
You made a jump there and the logic didn't follow. God knowing what will happen and what has happened does not in any way affect choice.


I must have misread something. I thought you were using a copout(sp). Those things tick me off to no end.
I only use them when I am trying to piss someone off.

"God has a plan" "God works in mysterious ways" "God is beyond our knowledge"
I do find all three of those to be true in my perception though.


the parallel I was going for was how people shift which god is in control of their beliefs.
You can be a satanist and worship satan, but you are no longer a Christian.

A Christian is a follower of Christ, someone with knowledge of who Christ was and is and is to be, and yet does not follow is not a Christian. It says in the Bible that even the demons know of Jesus, they are not His followers though.

You made a jump there and the logic didn't follow. God knowing what will happen and what has happened does not in any way affect choice.

Nope. You cannot actual make your own choice if someone knows what you will choose and can never be wrong. For you to have an actual choice they have to have the chance to be incorrect. it is nothing more than an illusion of choice they people have if an all knowing being exists.

It like if you come to 2 doors. one of them might as well not even be there since your "choice" was known before you were ever born.


You can be a satanist and worship satan, but you are no longer a Christian.

A Christian is a follower of Christ, someone with knowledge of who Christ was and is and is to be, and yet does not follow is not a Christian. It says in the Bible that even the demons know of Jesus, they are not His followers though.
looks like we hold different understandings of what a "christian" is. It has always been my understand that christian is someone who believes that christ died for our sins. and satanist simply turn their back on it.

just because I know something doesn't mean I effect it in any way.

it does if you created the rules governing the effects and brought about the initial conditions that caused whatever to happen. this is how we treat responsibility in the human world, and we have much less certain knowledge about the effects of our actions and the choices of others than god is alleged to.

the more sophisticated attempted way out of that paradox is to claim that god doesn't actually know the future but that doesn't reflect poorly on god because all-knowing only means knows everything that it is possible to know. this, of course, runs into the problem of directly contradicting the bible, but the biblical god isn't omnipotent, omniscient, or omni-benevolent anyways.

It's irrational to believe that you know something that cannot be known.

its irrational to believe that something cannot be known without a damn solid argument that it can't.

Isn't that the definition of any belief?

no. belief is just some cognitive content a person holds to be true.

I do find all three of those to be true in my perception though.
might as well say: "God exists because he exists."
What? Ok...
Come on, "God is beyond our knowledge?" Well people do one hell of a job interpreting what he does and what he wants.

A Christian is a follower of Christ, someone with knowledge of who Christ was and is and is to be, and yet does not follow is not a Christian. It says in the Bible that even the demons know of Jesus, they are not His followers though.
I'm not going to go into things here.

might as well say: "God exists because he exists."
What? Ok...
Come on, "God is beyond our knowledge?" Well people do one hell of a job interpreting what he does and what he wants.
God is a logic nightmare, I never claimed any different. Any real attempt to explain God or His existence ends up being tautology anyway.

ummmm.... Unitarians are Christians.... but they don't believe in the Trinity...

I'd say they were monotheistic.

So before we start saying, "Christians" we need to specify "which ones".

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!

Dammit! You were golden until that last fucking paragraph. God damn emoticons.

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's little evidence of the jews ever actually having been to Egypt.

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.

So you're saying Satan is but an extension of God, and God, not Satan, is the avatar of evil? That was one of the options I gave. You could've saved us both some time to just pick that one.

the only part that i can recall the devil talking with jesus was when he tried to turn jesus from god.....




but if jesus is god (and wouldn't have satan known this since he knew god personally[see Job and whatever book he fell in] and knew jesus was the son of god?) how could he have ever been turn against himself?

Jesus also spent three days in hell. I assume he met Satan there as well.

2) I had hoped that I made it clear that I was talking about the definition of "god" that I use within my beliefs and thoughts. I do not believe that anything in my post implied that I was applying that definition to other people's belief systems. I was just putting it out there in case anyone wanted to start addressing the definition issue. But if you read my post again, you should see that nowhere did I make any attempt to state or define what anyone else thinks a god is.


Deity; noun. blah blah blah... Your definition doesn't matter. If you call something that it's not, you're either a liar or a crazy person.

though this is because it deals with their personal mythological system. a better way to do it would be to describe the character of satan as being a supernatural entity in some other culture's religion and ask them if that character sounds godish in that context.

Such as Hades.

One of my points partially agrees with this. It was the bit about cultural influences -- or in other words, if we will allow, the influence of personal mythological systems -- upon the forms of Christianity.

But a problem you'd run into with your suggestion of putting Satan into a different cultural context and asking "them" - I presume you mean Christians - whether he sounds like a god to them, is that you'd be getting caught up in the same semantical problem we've been having in this thread: What does "god" mean?
It is perfectly possible for people to use the same word with totally conflicting meanings, in different contexts. So "god" referring to the god they worship/believe in will mean something different from "god" referring to something someone else believes in but they think is false.

So your Christians might say, "Yes, that sounds like a god," but they do not mean it sounds like God (note the capitalization).

Deity: noun. blah blah blah... how many god damn times am I going to have to keep posting that definition? There IS a workable general definition of god, regardless of whether you decide to acknowledge it or not.

"So your christians might say..." - Sure, they'll make a distinction between god and a god, but only because 'god' doesn't have a name they can agree on, so they just call him by his title. This does not keep keep christianity from being polytheistic, just because they've turned a noun into a proper noun because they're lazy bastards and don't want to call him Yahweh. Bottom line: by an objective definition, Satan and God are both gods. Unless you insist that Satan is God, or is his split personality he uses when he feels like doing evil or something, you have no ground to stand on when you say it's monotheistic other than "La la la la la, I can't hear you".

ummmm.... Unitarians are Christians.... but they don't believe in the Trinity...

I'd say they were monotheistic.

So before we start saying, "Christians" we need to specify "which ones".

don't worry about it, they think that Satan is god and also is a Christian.

don't worry about it, they think that Satan is god and also is a Christian.

If I were a christian, I'd be a unitarian.

If I were a christian, I'd be a unitarian.

If you were a unitarian you would probably be a nicer person. *nod* I totally know an atheist/agnostic unitarian.

If you were a unitarian you would probably be a nicer person. *nod* I totally know an atheist/agnostic unitarian.

Yeah, Unitarians are more and more "believe whatever you want, but come to church" people.

Yeah, Unitarians are more and more "believe whatever you want, but come to church" people.

they are very social around here, they have a picnic open to the public every Sunday afternoon, food provided but bring your own beer.

If you were a unitarian you would probably be a nicer person. *nod* I totally know an atheist/agnostic unitarian.

If you were an agnostic with deist tendencies, you'd be more fun to talk to. =D

If you were an agnostic with deist tendencies, you'd be more fun to talk to. =D

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

If you were an agnostic with deist tendencies, you'd be more fun to talk to. =D

:D good to know.

God is a logic nightmare, I never claimed any different. Any real attempt to explain God or His existence ends up being tautology anyway.

You know what's beyond our knowledge? Common sense.

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

I'm so confused!

Is RO playing madlibs or something?!

I'm so confused!

Is RO playing madlibs or something?!

No, I just watched The Big Lebowski again...

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.

Satan doesn't exist.
In my experience, there is no conclusive Biblical evidence for the existence of Satan. Most of it, if I recall correctly, stems from medieval or, more specifically, Renaissance teachings about the existential nature of of a fallen being who has "taken over" Hell.
But that is irrelevant. To argue according to the hypothesis, the Devil, as understood today, is not another god. The attributes attributed him are largely the result of common folklore and legend, not necessarily Christian doctrine.
Actually, if you want my opinion, it arises from the break between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God of jesus Christ. The latter is based more on love and forgiveness, instead of the Old Testament belief in a "wrathful" God; thus bad things that happen are generally considered the work of Satan rather than the loving God of the NT. But like most opinions, there is more to the facts and I am most probably wrong ;P

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.

Certainly there could be. Monotheistic means that believers worship one God. The OT talks of Baal, and we of course know of the polytheistic beliefs of pre-Judaic cultures (Greek, Egyptian, etc.). Thus what those lines mean is not that no other gods exist but that God is the only True God, and the only one who should be worshipped by his believers.
Interestingly, later understanding treated these entities as demons, meant to intentionally mislead away from God, rather than assigning the natures of deities.


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?

Don't recall that in the OT, but it was not uncommon for Hebraic translations to treat YHWH as both female and male, encompassing all forms of humanity; not unlikely that God referred to himself as 'we", especially once you start getting into the ideas of Metatron and other legendary Heavenly aspects being one Heavenly host, as it were. Also it could refer to the union of Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God; though in the Old Testament perhaps just the first and last...

You know what's beyond our knowledge? Common sense.

not true, common sense is also intuitive knowledge, it's beyond our means to empirically prove but it is knowledge and it does exist and we can infer truths from it.

Fine. Some denominations believe in Satan, ascribing to him varying levels of power and influence. His mythology is similarly varied. Yet none of those denominations believe that Satan is on the same plane as God, in terms of power and influence. So one cannot call Satan a deity within he belief structure of either a part of Christianity or the whole. My point still stands.

Objectively, they can.

But, of course, that wouldn't change whether that person considers Satan a god within their own faith, which is the whole point.

No, it's not. The definition of deity does not depend on what faith you are.

no, what they consider him under their own idiosyncratic definitions doesn't matter in the slightest. what matters is what sort of entity satan is when examined objectively.

What he said.

That's just the point. I'm not sure such a huge concept like 'what determines a deity' can be dealt with objectively. Everyone has a belief structure and it is impossible to step outside it to examine what someone with another belief structure thinks or feels. Case in point: this thread. Even the atheists can't agree. Thus, I would say that in this case, not in all cases, the dogma of the faith itself should be the deciding factor.

It can be dealt with objectively. I've posted the definition a million times.

just because I know something doesn't mean I effect it in any way. I know that if I drop a marble in a glass of water then it will displace the water, it doesn't mean I displaced the water. I know that 2+2=4 I didn't make it equal 4, it just does.

You also didnt -create- 2, or 4, or math. There's the difference. God created it.

lol

i suppose you are free to but neither christians nor satanists will agree with you so you are a bit silly in that argument.

it would be akin to suggesting that islam is a branch of christianity. its arguable from a certain pont of view but a silly conclusion.

It is a branch, just as Christianity is a branch of Judaism.

you said that an all knowing God is incompatible with free will, I merely tried to explain that you can have knowledge of something and not be directly responsible for the outcome.

That doesn't work when you're the one that created the universe.


One could say with that definition that the devil himself is a Christian.

He is. What's your point? He's closer to god than the pope.


there is no parallel in this situation, because the devil is not God. God in Christianity is God on high above all others, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, there is none like Him and none whom can compare. Saying the devil is godlike is a major misunderstanding of Christianity.

Satan is not Godlike, he's godlike. He's not like your pronoun God Yahweh, he's -A- god. A deity. He's got the title of god because he reigns over an aspect of the earth from a supernatural aspect.

Now, like I said, there are two choices: SOMETHING is the avatar of evil - if it's Satan, then it gives him deity status. If it's god, you must admit that there is no Satan, or that if there is, god works through him and Satan is not, himself, evil, because he simply does god's work, but that it is god himself that is evil, and good, at the same time.

There must be an avatar of the aspect. Pick one of the two.

Satan doesn't exist.
In my experience, there is no conclusive Biblical evidence for the existence of Satan.

well of course he doesn't exist. but the bible, particularly the new testament, says he does, and gives him all sorts of powers and attributes. that is what is really up for discussion.

well of course he doesn't exist. but the bible, particularly the new testament, says he does, and gives him all sorts of powers and attributes. that is what is really up for discussion.

Fuck off. Read my entire post before responding next time.

Deity: noun. blah blah blah... how many god damn times am I going to have to keep posting that definition? There IS a workable general definition of god, regardless of whether you decide to acknowledge it or not.

This definition is irrelevant. The question is not so much about what it means to be a deity, but what monotheism means. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, monotheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." Christians do not believe Satan is a god anymore than they believe angels are gods. Does this go against your definition of deity? A little, but not enough to make Christianity polytheistic.
Finally, I would like to bring up this point: words are created by people, they have no actual resemblance to reality. Monotheism was created to describe religions such as Christianity. Claiming Christianity is not monotheistic is like claiming Freud's writings were not Freudian; it makes no sense to say the source of the word does not meet its criteria.

not true, common sense is also intuitive knowledge, it's beyond our means to empirically prove but it is knowledge and it does exist and we can infer truths from it.
You missed the point. Though now that I think about it, I didn't mean common sense exactly.

This definition is irrelevant. The question is not so much about what it means to be a deity, but what monotheism means. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, monotheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." Christians do not believe Satan is a god anymore than they believe angels are gods. Does this go against your definition of deity? A little, but not enough to make Christianity polytheistic.

*shrugs* Just because they don't believe there are two gods doesn't mean they're not crazy for clearly having two gods in their religion. Maybe they take it to mean one God, rather than one god, meaning "Yeah, there's just on Yahweh.", rather than "There's just one supernatural avatar of the aspects of the earth." Because if it's the latter, they're just flat-out wrong and inconsistent by their own words. Greecian worshippers would often pick one or a few specific gods to "believe in" and worship, but they still realized there were other supernatural avatars - in this respect, they could be considered monotheistic by your logic, but they'd still be crazy because there's more than one god in the Greek pantheon, much like there's more than one god in the christian faith.


Finally, I would like to bring up this point: words are created by people, they have no actual resemblance to reality. Monotheism was created to describe religions such as Christianity. Claiming Christianity is not monotheistic is like claiming Freud's writings were not Freudian; it makes no sense to say the source of the word does not meet its criteria.

Not so. Words are created by people to describe the world around them. Words have a resemblance to reality because they're intertwined with logic, which is our understanding and ability to learn about the world around us. Monotheism was not 'created' - monotheism, as a religion and status of faith, existed once someone considered the idea of a single god. It doesn't matter when we gave a word for it, it existed then and there, and I'm fairly certain this is before the christian god.

Your Freud/Fruedian metaphor is faulty - for that to work you'd have to replace "monotheism" with "the bible". Big leap, there.

Monotheism was created to describe religions such as Christianity. Claiming Christianity is not monotheistic is like claiming Freud's writings were not Freudian; it makes no sense to say the source of the word does not meet its criteria.

but the word monotheism does not mean 'religions such as christianity'. it means 'the belief that there is one god'. it doesn't mater that the word was invented with christianity in mind, what matters is the concept it describes.

all sorts of words were invented or brought into use with some particular thing in mind that it later turned out don't actually fit the defintion. to stick with the bible, bats ain't birds, despite leviticus' claims to the contrary.

now when this happens, we have two options. we can either change the definition, as we did with atom (now it means 'the smallest bit of matter that still has the properties of an element' rather than just an indivisible bit of matter), or we can change the category the thing is placed in (whales and bats are now mammals rather than fish and birds). we want to do the latter, since monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, and atheism are clearly categories not bound by the particular religions that exist at any one time.

but even if you choose the former, and say that from now on when you say monotheism you will mean 'religions such as christianity' and when you say polytheism you will mean 'religions that differ from christianity', that doesn't actually help you. all you will have accomplished is making us come up with another word to describe religions by the number of deities in their pantheons. and we will still include christianity in the category of having more than one.

<Snip>

So you're saying Satan is but an extension of God, and God, not Satan, is the avatar of evil? That was one of the options I gave. You could've saved us both some time to just pick that one.

<Snippety snip>

No. I am not God, but Christians would say that I fit into God's plan. Just because God (being God) knows what I will do and has designs for you, does not make me God's avatar. The same goes for Satan, Jessica Simpson, Barrack Obama, the Archangel Michael, and every other being in the universe (again, going by Christian beliefs). You made a ginormous leap of logic, missed the floating platform, and fell into the spike pit.

except we have no problem at all talking about greek gods, etc. so clearly we are working with some general conception of 'god' that allows us to coherently call things outside our own cultural background by a generic term that was not used within that other belief structure and have it make sense. so i'm not seeing the impossibility.

What? The ancient Greeks believed their gods were gods. I might say that they were really immortal superheroes, which to me makes perfect sense. I think a real god has some measure of omniscience, and as someone raised in a monotheistic tradition, I like me a little near-or absolute omnipotence.


And anyway, I was joking. I'm not actually a follower of the Norse religion. Did you really not catch that?

First off, Congratulations! we reached 20 pages!




Second, In the end, we agree that depending on how much power a person (or sect) attributes to the devil, they can be a monotheistic christian or a polytheistic christian?




Third, An all-powerful god I can understand. It the all-knowing one that can allow free-will I don't get...


You need to read C.S. Lewis. Not the Narnia crap, the serious stuff.

Anyway, if God is omnipotent, than can't he grant freewill while still being omniscient?

i don't want respect. i want them to learn to think rationally. maybe one day one of them might come up with a plausible argument for the existence of god - that'd be pretty neat.

You realize, of course, that as long as they do no harm, how they think is not only none of your business, but a sacred right that your attempt to force your particular mode of thinking upon them violates? I know you're probably a nice guy, but saying things like that makes Atheists sound like douchebags and denegrates the core elements of humanity that all religions and non-religions claim to revere.

Faith can be a beautiful thing as long as it helps and does not hurt. It is some people's choice. Why impune that choice?

well that's a nonstandard answer. the usual one is that god can do anything that is logically possible, because to require that he be able to do more is to require nonsense.

Eh. I like my God not to stop at the logical, because to define him by logic seems to limit the definition of a (by definition) limitless being.

But then again, you could also answer the stone paradox using quantum mechanics, which makes my head hurt enough without introducing a heavyweight head-hurter like the G man into the mix.

Anyway, with my way I feel luckier when He chooseth not to smite me for mine wicked deeds.

You realize, of course, that as long as they do no harm, how they think is not only none of your business, but a sacred right that your attempt to force your particular mode of thinking upon them violates?

as soon as they take up doing no harm, then we can talk. as it stands, they harm me, they harm their children, and they harm the world.

What? The ancient Greeks believed their gods were gods.

no, they believed they were theos (θεός, actually). this gets translated to 'god', but that translation is only possible because we accept the existence of some sort of underlying conceptual framework which unifies the two into one.

no, they believed they were theos (θεός, actually). this gets translated to 'god', but that translation is only possible because we accept the existence of some sort of underlying conceptual framework which unifies the two into one.what the heck are you talking about? what now is called 'god' is not at all different than the theoi of greece. even the biblical god is a middle eastern deity, from almost the same region where the deities of the aegean have sprung from.

Faith can be a beautiful thing as long as it helps and does not hurt.Even if the issue of faith is inexistent? How is that not in fact hurtful, although one does not necessarily realize that?

what the heck are you talking about?

i'm talking about the fact that translation would be impossible if the concepts were fundamentally incommensurable.

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?

The only truly monotheistic religion that I'm aware of is Judaism, but even that may not be.

The only truly monotheistic religion that I'm aware of is Judaism.Well, it was not when YHVH was still married to Asherah...

I'm not sure if there's any religion at all which is monotheistic. It just doesn't make a good story.

Well, it was not when YHVH was still married to Asherah...

Well, yeah, but we're talking about today.

Besides, it still isn't, since you can consider angels to be demi-gods.

Well, yeah, but we're talking about today.Today it is just ignored that it was not always as it is now. That's part of the hypocrisy. And doesn't such a fundamental change in doctrine somewhat devaluate the faith?

Besides, it still isn't, since you can consider angels to be demi-gods.What is a demi-god? As opposed to a god? Only demi-transecendent? Demi-holy? Demi-powerful? Demi-nonhuman?

The only truly monotheistic religion that I'm aware of is Judaism, but even that may not be.

how can you say that?

there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet

how does that not qualify as monotheistic?

It is a branch, just as Christianity is a branch of Judaism.


no

its an offshoot of judaism.

Polytheistic. Unless, of course, God has multiple personality disorder.

EDIT: And a demigod is a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank. According to the dictionary, at any rate.

Polytheistic. Unless, of course, God has multiple personality disorder.

EDIT: And a demigod is a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank. According to the dictionary, at any rate.So divinity comes in various statūs?

demigods are the offpring of the mating of a human and a god. many of the ancient greek heros are demigods.

its a whole nother take on the notion of having a personal relationship with god.

It's a polytheistic cult that should collapse.

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 1 seconds.

demigods are the offpring of the mating of a human and a god. many of the ancient greek heros are demigods.

its a whole nother take on the notion of having a personal relationship with god.So what are the criteria to distinguish humans from demigods and demigods from gods?

So what are the criteria to distinguish humans from demigods and demigods from gods?

folklore and legend.

So what are the criteria to distinguish humans from demigods and demigods from gods?

im not an expert in greek theology.

to me the difference is only in parentage and in how the god-parent treats his half human offspring.

im not an expert in greek theology.

to me the difference is only in parentage and in how the god-parent treats his half human offspring.why greek mythology? aren't we talking about something real?
maybe i didn't ask precisely enough: what are the properties, the characteristics that make a god a god? and which of these characteristics apply to a demigod to make him different from a human?
and is yeshua a demigod according to what you said, being the son of a god and a human woman?

why greek mythology? aren't we talking about something real?
maybe i didn't ask precisely enough: what are the properties, the characteristics that make a god a god? and which of these characteristics apply to a demigod to make him different from a human?
and is yeshua a demigod according to what you said, being the son of a god and a human woman?

it depends on how the people in the religion/culture define it. Some Greek gods were not full gods because they were half human. Jesus was not half human he was full God and full human (however the hell that works). If people who are Christians say Jesus was God then He was.

It's like trying to figure out how we know the big bad wolf was bad in the 3 pigs, what if he was just misunderstood? what if he was average sized and the pigs only thought he was big? what are the characteristics of a wolf anyway? don't they usually eat pigs? wouldn't he then be a normal, average sized misunderstood wolf?

why greek mythology? aren't we talking about something real?
maybe i didn't ask precisely enough: what are the properties, the characteristics that make a god a god? and which of these characteristics apply to a demigod to make him different from a human?
and is yeshua a demigod according to what you said, being the son of a god and a human woman?

not all religions have the concept of a demigod

and NO we arent talking about something real, we are talking theology. no religious term makes any sense when it is divorced from a theological setting.

as i said earlier, there IS no one definition of "god" that covers all religions.

the japanese "worshipped" hirohito as a "god" before the end of word war 2. does hirohito fit the definition of a god as a westerner would ever understand it?

no

similar with haile selasse and rastafariansim. did haile selasse consider himself a god?

no.

because a certain greek god is about as powerful as an archangel is in christian theology does that mean that the greek god ISNT a god or that the archangel IS?

no.

these things only make sense within the theology of the religions themselves. you can only evaluate whether or not the theology is internally consistent, not whether or not it represents something REAL.

i was thinking about that jesus as demigod thing. god and mary didnt have sex. jesus was placed in her womb by the power of the holy spirit. im not certain but i think she was only a vessel.

it depends on how the people in the religion/culture define it. Some Greek gods were not full gods because they were half human. Jesus was not half human he was full God and full human (however the hell that works). If people who are Christians say Jesus was God then He was.

It's like trying to figure out how we know the big bad wolf was bad in the 3 pigs, what if he was just misunderstood? what if he was average sized and the pigs only thought he was big? what are the characteristics of a wolf anyway? don't they usually eat pigs? wouldn't he then be a normal, average sized misunderstood wolf?

*sings*

"who's afraid of the normal average sized misunderstood wolf?"

not all religions have the concept of a demigod

and NO we arent talking about something real, we are talking theology. no religious term makes any sense when it is divorced from a theological setting.

as i said earlier, there IS no one definition of "god" that covers all religions.

the japanese "worshipped" hirohito as a "god" before the end of word war 2. does hirohito fit the definition of a god as a westerner would ever understand it?

no

similar with haile selasse and rastafariansim. did haile selasse consider himself a god?

no.

because a certain greek god is about as powerful as an archangel is in christian theology does that mean that the greek god ISNT a god or that the archangel IS?

no.

these things only make sense within the theology of the religions themselves. you can only evaluate whether or not the theology is internally consistent, not whether or not it represents something REAL.

i was thinking about that jesus as demigod thing. god and mary didnt have sex. jesus was placed in her womb by the power of the holy spirit. im not certain but i think she was only a vessel.

You really love saying the is no definition that would work across religions, while not give reason as to why the deity definition would not work.


Before the end of WW2 the Japanese worshiped their Emperors as Gods. A kind of War god if I remember right. which would still follow the deity definition. Not the mention the Emperors are supposed to be able to trace their ancestry to Ametaratsu(sp?) the shito sun god (again if memory serves...)

You really love saying the is no definition that would work across religions, while not give reason as to why the deity definition would not work.


Before the end of WW2 the Japanese worshiped their Emperors as Gods. A kind of War god if I remember right. which would still follow the deity definition. Not the mention the Emperors are supposed to be able to trace their ancestry to Ametaratsu(sp?) the shito sun god (again if memory serves...)

im not sure that shinto recognizes "god" in the same way that a westerner might define it. so while "god" might be the closest definition, that doesnt necessarily mean that if you or i really understood shinto that we would agree with the assessment

but more importantly, as a man, hirohito would never ever meet the definition of god that a rational person would put forth. he can ONLY be a god within the rules of shinto. (should it be an appropriate designation)

im not sure that shinto recognizes "god" in the same way that a westerner might define it. so while "god" might be the closest definition, that doesnt necessarily mean that if you or i really understood shinto that we would agree with the assessment

but more importantly, as a man, hirohito would never ever meet the definition of god that a rational person would put forth. he can ONLY be a god within the rules of shinto. (should it be an appropriate designation)Shinto is similar the eygptian religion in so far as the gods and godesses are flawed and fight among themselves.

As a man, but how does that effect the god? afterall Jesus was a "man" but also a "god".

Shinto is similar the eygptian religion in so far as the gods and godesses are flawed and fight among themselves.

As a man, but how does that effect the god? afterall Jesus was a "man" but also a "god".

jesus was divine, a co-creator of the universe, an aspect of the one true god.

lost in the mists of time, jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, forgave sins and rose from the dead.

hirohito had no magical powers. the onlyway he was "god" was by the definintion of shinto calling him such. (if indeed it is an appropriate designation)

jesus was divine, a co-creator of the universe, an aspect of the one true god.and by what criteria was that found out?

lost in the mists of time, jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, forgave sins and rose from the dead.
hirohito had no magical powers. the onlyway he was "god" was by the definintion of shinto calling him such. (if indeed it is an appropriate designation)how do you know that jesus' magical powers exceeded those of hirohito?

Shinto is similar the eygptian religion in so far as the gods and godesses are flawed and fight among themselves.how are egyptian gods and goddesses flawed?

but more importantly, as a man, hirohito would never ever meet the definition of god that a rational person would put forth.what exactly is the definition of god that a rational person would put forth?? what rationality is needed to determine somebody's divinity?

jesus was divine, a co-creator of the universe, an aspect of the one true god.

lost in the mists of time, jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, forgave sins and rose from the dead.

hirohito had no magical powers. the onlyway he was "god" was by the definintion of shinto calling him such. (if indeed it is an appropriate designation)wait, how can an aspect of the same being be a "co-creator"? would it just be a creator?

Hirohito was a god of war. The faithful of Japan thought they had the divine protection of the Emperor and could not lose. (that combine with militarism...but you get the point ^_^)


how are egyptian gods and goddesses flawed?
I mainly mean flawed as in not omnipotent, but I for one would defiantly call a wooden penis a flaw.(at least I think that was in egyptian mythology...)

So what are the criteria to distinguish humans from demigods and demigods from gods?

literally, the claimed parentage. though sometimes demigods are alleged to be granted full godhood, like jesus or later versions of heracles. other biblical demigods are the ones mentioned in genesis 6:

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

speaking of this passage, 'sons of god'. hmmmm...

literally, the claimed parentage. though sometimes demigods are alleged to be granted full godhood, like jesus or later versions of heracles. other biblical demigods are the ones mentioned in genesis 6:
speaking of this passage, 'sons of god'. hmmmm...oh, the nephilim... the descended ones, the biblical version of the annunaki ;)
but i stll don't know what exactly is the difference between a demigod and a god. both are not human and have some supernatural powers. so only parentage is the distinguishing criterion?

I'm a little late in joining this discussion...

I'm just going to randomly comment on random things random people have said on this thread.


Free Soviets:
poor catholics, always getting the short end of the preteen

Huh? 'Short end of the preteen'?

Khadgar:
I always thought the worship of various saints and angels and empowering them with various traits lent Christianity a distinctly polytheistic feel.

When did Christians start whorshipping saints and angels?

Upward Thrust:
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

Many Christians take the bible literally; I choose to take it metaphorically. In the passage, when Jesus asked God to spare him from the cross, I don't actually think that the author of that book was trying to say that Jesus praid to God; I think he was trying to illustrate how horrible and painful it would be and how much Jesus must have loved us to go through with it.

and by what criteria was that found out?

how do you know that jesus' magical powers exceeded those of hirohito?

i am only going by the reported and believed divinity of jesus.

unfortunately for hirohito we have evidence that he had no magical power

what exactly is the definition of god that a rational person would put forth?? what rationality is needed to determine somebody's divinity?

my point is that there IS no rational definition of "god" that can possibly cover all religions and not take the various theologies into consideration.

a god is that which a particular relgion claims as a god. there can be no independant rational non-theology based defintion that is more specific than that.

i use hirohito not because he isnt a FIT god for shinto--as a nonshinto i have no meaningful opinion on that subject. i use him because he wouldnt fit an outsiders definition of god since he was just a man who happened to be emperor of japan.

wait, how can an aspect of the same being be a "co-creator"? would it just be a creator?

that co-creator/creator part reflects the mysterious nature of the trinity.


Hirohito was a god of war. The faithful of Japan thought they had the divine protection of the Emperor and could not lose. (that combine with militarism...but you get the point ^_^)


yes but i also know that no one outside of shinto would regard him as a god. he would fit no one else's definition.

unless the definition is "if they say its a god, its a god".

which is fine by me.

i use hirohito not because he isnt a FIT god for shinto--as a nonshinto i have no meaningful opinion on that subject. i use him because he wouldnt fit an outsiders definition of god since he was just a man who happened to be emperor of japan.

how wouldn't he fit an outsiders definition of a god? the fact that they are wrong about the godness of the man, doesn't mean that they don't attribute the required factors to him. i mean, that's like saying that because there aren't any gods that actually exist, christianity lacks gods. we aren't counting the numbers of beings that have godish attributes. we are counting the number of beings that are claimed to have them within particular religions.

unless the definition is "if they say its a god, its a god".

which is fine by me.

instantaneously runs into the same old translation problem. no other language calls their gods 'gods'. the only way you can translate 'kami' to 'god' is to recognize that both terms express a concept that is in essence the same.

instantaneously runs into the same old translation problem. no other language calls their gods 'gods'. the only way you can translate 'kami' to 'god' is to recognize that both terms express a concept that is in essence the same.

the sources i looked at indicated that they are not the same thing.

which only makes sense. japanese culture is very different from western culture.

the sources i looked at indicated that they are not the same thing.

actually, they are pretty close. at least some of its usages fall under the basic dictionary definition of gods.

actually, they are pretty close. at least some of its usages fall under the basic dictionary definition of gods.

the important words here are SOME and DICTIONARY.

the important words here are SOME and DICTIONARY.

dude, only some uses of the word 'god' are really talking about gods. and what, you disapprove of dictionaries now?

dude, only some uses of the word 'god' are really talking about gods. and what, you disapprove of dictionaries now?

we dont take the dictionary definition of anarchy to discuss the merits of anarchism

we dont take the dictionary definition of communism as the end all and be all of communism

why would we take the dictionary defintion of a theological term?

dude, only some uses of the word 'god' are really talking about gods. and what, you disapprove of dictionaries now?

besides, the point is, that if only SOME kamis are analagous to western gods, then there is more to the concept than can be covered by the term god.

we dont take the dictionary definition of anarchy to discuss the merits of anarchism

we dont take the dictionary definition of communism as the end all and be all of communism

why would we take the dictionary defintion of a theological term?

i'm not using it as the final word on the subject. i'm trying to get you to agree that we have some sort of concept of gods that can be and is coherently applied cross-culturally. your only counterargument thus far has been 'nuh-uh'.

besides, the point is, that if only SOME kamis are analagous to western gods, then there is more to the concept than can be covered by the term god.

that's nice. so?

i'm not using it as the final word on the subject. i'm trying to get you to agree that we have some sort of concept of gods that can be and is coherently applied cross-culturally. your only counterargument thus far has been 'nuh-uh'.

that's nice. so?

hmmm the example we have been discussing, the shinto concept of kami, shows how wrong it is to force a definition of god that is outside a particular religion.

if i said that kami is the japanese version of god i would be wrong.

hmmm the example we have been discussing, the shinto concept of kami, shows how wrong it is to force a definition of god that is outside a particular religion.

if i said that kami is the japanese version of god i would be wrong.

but that is because kami is a more general term - it covers both gods and other sorts of spirits/powers. the fact remains that many kami clearly fit within the concept of gods.

but that is because kami is a more general term - it covers both gods and other sorts of spirits/powers. the fact remains that many kami clearly fit within the concept of gods.

so?

the fact remains that god is a completely inadequate translation for kami

and that since the japanese call all those general things "kami" the term cannot mean god.

so why try to force a definition of god that can include the spirit of a rock, hirohito, the reluctant god of rastifarianism hailie selasee, thor, the great spirit of some native american belief systems, allah, yaweh and the trinity?

it cannot possibly be adequate to any religion.

so?

the fact remains that god is a completely inadequate translation for kami

good thing we ain't translating kami to always mean god then, eh?

so why try to force a definition of god that can include the spirit of a rock, hirohito, the reluctant god of rastifarianism hailie selasee, thor, the great spirit of some native american belief systems, allah, yaweh and the trinity?

because they all take part in the same concept. in fact, that old dictionary definition seems to do pretty well in capturing that shared concept in all of those cases.

instantaneously runs into the same old translation problem. no other language calls their gods 'gods'. the only way you can translate 'kami' to 'god' is to recognize that both terms express a concept that is in essence the same.But isn't a Kami rather a spirit than a god? So wouldn't it rather fit into "our" concept of Angel or Muse?

No. I am not God, but Christians would say that I fit into God's plan. Just because God (being God) knows what I will do and has designs for you, does not make me God's avatar. The same goes for Satan, Jessica Simpson, Barrack Obama, the Archangel Michael, and every other being in the universe (again, going by Christian beliefs). You made a ginormous leap of logic, missed the floating platform, and fell into the spike pit.

Right, but you're not satan. Least, I don't think you are. As such, you don't have the power that satan has, you don't have the influence, the following, the myth, the connection with god that he must have.

So if God is the avatar of good and basically everything, then either he or Satan is the avatar of evil. If Satan is the avatar of evil, then he is a deity. If God is the avatar of evil as well as everything else (which would make sense, if he created everything), then Satan could be part of the trinity, or form a quadrinity, as being the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the Devil, encompassing all aspects of creation.

There really is only two options. There's no dancing around it. Pick one.

You need to read C.S. Lewis. Not the Narnia crap, the serious stuff.

Anyway, if God is omnipotent, than can't he grant freewill while still being omniscient?

Not without logical paradox. I suppose he could subvert that, being god and all, but if he wanted to start doing random stuff that causes paradox then why not make the world perfect while he's at it? In a perfect world with free will, there would be paradox, but no more than if he were to grant free will and claim omniscience.

no

its an offshoot of judaism.

Joanie Loves Chachi is an offshoot. Christianity is a branch.

But isn't a Kami rather a spirit than a god? So wouldn't it rather fit into "our" concept of Angel or Muse?

Kami is generally accepted as 'god', though the Japanese language by defnition and practice is a very general way of speaking. The word 'hai' is used for 'hello', 'yes', 'what?', 'goodbye' and general acknowledgement. For their purposes, kami is sufficient.

Kami is generally accepted as 'god', though the Japanese language by defnition and practice is a very general way of speaking. The word 'hai' is used for 'hello', 'yes', 'what?', 'goodbye' and general acknowledgement. For their purposes, kami is sufficient.

context is key, but all the context in the world can't help you translate something unless there is an common understanding of a concept. (funny thing is the common concept is one of the claims people use to try an prove there is a god)

context is key, but all the context in the world can't help you translate something unless there is an common understanding of a concept. (funny thing is the common concept is one of the claims people use to try an prove there is a god)

Well I think to specify a higher deity, they say something like "Kami Hirohito". So there is a somewhat common concept.

Still waiting on a decision about Satan. Very simple question.

Still waiting on a decision about Satan. Very simple question.

I do hope you're not holding your breath.

Still waiting on a decision about Satan.What about him??

Still waiting on a decision about Satan. Very simple question.

satan is not a god because in christian/jewish/islamic theology there is only one god and he is the creator of the universe. satan creates nothing. he is just a powerful supernatural being.

What about him??

he question was:


Now, like I said, there are two choices: SOMETHING is the avatar of evil - if it's Satan, then it gives him deity status. If it's god, you must admit that there is no Satan, or that if there is, god works through him and Satan is not, himself, evil, because he simply does god's work, but that it is god himself that is evil, and good, at the same time.

There must be an avatar of the aspect. Pick one of the two.

An interesting question, and the first that I feel like responding to. :) If this has been said already let me know, I didn't have time to dig through the entire post.

Let's say that the Christian God is:
basic trinitarian philosophy, 1 God 3 persons.

there is still only 1 god.

John 1
as Smunkee says. Christianity also accepts God as creator of space and time. It also states that Satan was created along with everything else, but was made good, just like everything else. However, unlike the nihilism of hinduism, and the harshness of Islam's God, Christianity believes that Satan, as well as mankind, was given a choice of living for the Christian God or against Him. So Satan is not so much the opposite of God, as he is the antagonist of God's design.

Christianity does not state that it is Satan who has created or been the "avatar" of evil. Christians [rough quote from C.S. Lewis] would think of evil as the absence of God (who is considered to be the essence and definition of Good). This lowers Satan from being the creator and mastermind of all that is bad, to being the windows vista of OS's... buggy, open to viruses, and intent on crashing what was a semi stable PC (bad analogy, I know).

Anyways...

An interesting question, and the first that I feel like responding to. :) If this has been said already let me know, I didn't have time to dig through the entire post.

Let's say that the Christian God is:

as Smunkee says. Christianity also accepts God as creator of space and time. It also states that Satan was created along with everything else, but was made good, just like everything else. However, unlike the nihilism of hinduism, and the harshness of Islam's God, Christianity believes that Satan, as well as mankind, was given a choice of living for the Christian God or against Him. So Satan is not so much the opposite of God, as he is the antagonist of God's design.

Christianity does not state that it is Satan who has created or been the "avatar" of evil. Christians [rough quote from C.S. Lewis] would think of evil as the absence of God (who is considered to be the essence and definition of Good). This lowers Satan from being the creator and mastermind of all that is bad, to being the windows vista of OS's... buggy, open to viruses, and intent on crashing what was a semi stable PC (bad analogy, I know).

Anyways...


as i understand it, satan isnt the creator of evil, he is that which tempts us to evil

so he didnt create the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the pacific but he did (theologically speaking) twist the minds of the columbine shooters.

as i understand it, satan isnt the creator of evil, he is that which tempts us to evil

so he didnt create the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the pacific but he did (theologically speaking) twist the minds of the columbine shooters.

I would agree completely, with the minor addendum that they accepted the temptation that was offered, and made the choice to follow through. Thus the twist is not necessarily someone else's creation (namely Satan) but their own decision to act on a temptation or a series of temptations. As we all know, once you start a forum, choices must be made inside that thread that affect the outcome of it. ;) And again, I agree, if that makes sense. :)

I would agree completely, with the minor addendum that they accepted the temptation that was offered, and made the choice to follow through. Thus the twist is not necessarily someone else's creation (namely Satan) but their own decision to act on a temptation or a series of temptations. As we all know, once you start a forum, choices must be made inside that thread that affect the outcome of it. ;) And again, I agree, if that makes sense. :)

i completely agree.

although the church does have the concept of demonic possession -- not done by satan but by one of his minions and completely seperate from mental illness. but those poor souls are quite different than the columbine shooters who chose to do evil.

Agree again. :D hmmmm... Ithink besides us this thread has gone the way of the buffalo. lol

Agree again. :D hmmmm... Ithink besides us this thread has gone the way of the buffalo. lol

its "old".

you gotta get in on the first page if you want to really participate in a thread like this.

dont worry, we get interesting religious threads quite often

its "old".

you gotta get in on the first page if you want to really participate in a thread like this.

dont worry, we get interesting religious threads quite often

Too often.

However, unlike the nihilism of hinduism,

what?

he question was:Now, like I said, there are two choices: SOMETHING is the avatar of evil - if it's Satan, then it gives him deity status. If it's god, you must admit that there is no Satan, or that if there is, god works through him and Satan is not, himself, evil, because he simply does god's work, but that it is god himself that is evil, and good, at the same time.

There must be an avatar of the aspect. Pick one of the two.Ah, but why has Satan, the accuser, to be an avatar of God? He does not do "evil" at all, he just does the job he was assigned by God (cf Iob). He does what he does to bring out the evil in humans, he leads people into temptation to see how they will behave. The whole thing about Satan being a kind of opposite power to God is a rather late Christian view of biblical theology that was not in the Jewish perspective.
And God himself is neither evil nor good, although drowning humanity in a Flood is a rather buttholy thing to do.

satan is not a god because in christian/jewish/islamic theology there is only one god and he is the creator of the universe. satan creates nothing. he is just a powerful supernatural being.

Deity. We're using 'deity'. There is not only one deity in c/j/i, but there is just one deity NAMED god. One does not have to create anything to be a deity, but simply to be an avatar of an aspect of the universe.

An interesting question, and the first that I feel like responding to. :) If this has been said already let me know, I didn't have time to dig through the entire post.

Let's say that the Christian God is:

as Smunkee says. Christianity also accepts God as creator of space and time. It also states that Satan was created along with everything else, but was made good, just like everything else. However, unlike the nihilism of hinduism, and the harshness of Islam's God, Christianity believes that Satan, as well as mankind, was given a choice of living for the Christian God or against Him. So Satan is not so much the opposite of God, as he is the antagonist of God's design.

Christianity does not state that it is Satan who has created or been the "avatar" of evil. Christians [rough quote from C.S. Lewis] would think of evil as the absence of God (who is considered to be the essence and definition of Good). This lowers Satan from being the creator and mastermind of all that is bad, to being the windows vista of OS's... buggy, open to viruses, and intent on crashing what was a semi stable PC (bad analogy, I know).

Anyways...

It doesn't specifically say he's the avatar of evil, but he's referred to by many rather mean names, which one would believe to usually be reserved for a being of great evil.

So with your metaphor, who created the OS? God. Who created the viruses? God.

Absence of good is not 'evil'. It's simply not good. I've always disagreed with that definition and will continue to do so. There is such a thing as neutral, therefore having no good does not automatically create evil. Good is not 'light' - the absence of light is dark, because there is no neutral light or neutral dark, but again, the metaphor does not work, therefore good is not equivalent to light.

Evil is malice. It's negative intent. Dark is not evil because dark has no intentions. Dark does not seek to thwart the light - it hides from it, bends away from it, disappears completely because of it. Evil is not so submissive towards good as dark is to light - if this were true, all one would have to do is to be good for the Columbine shooters to never have succeeded. Unless you're suggesting everyone in that school was evil or neutral - either wanted or didn't care if it happened - then dark is not evil. Again: evil is intent. They had the intention of doing evil. Simply not having the intention of doing good does not mean they were doing evil.

To sum up: evil is not dark, light is not good. Absence of good = neutral or evil. Absence of evil = neutral or good. It could be either.

Therefore, absence of god does not equal evil. Satan is surely not neutral, so he must be evil.

as i understand it, satan isnt the creator of evil, he is that which tempts us to evil

so he didnt create the tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the pacific but he did (theologically speaking) twist the minds of the columbine shooters.

No, god created the tsunami. Was the tsunami, then, good? It seems you're suggesting that Satan is simply the tool of god which lures men into evil, which is a creation of god. Again, you could just say that, it's one of the options.

Ah, but why has Satan, the accuser, to be an avatar of God? He does not do "evil" at all, he just does the job he was assigned by God (cf Iob). He does what he does to bring out the evil in humans, he leads people into temptation to see how they will behave.

With this it seems to suggest you believe the same as Ashmoria, that god is the avatar of evil, and Satan simply works for him.

The whole thing about Satan being a kind of opposite power to God is a rather late Christian view of biblical theology that was not in the Jewish perspective.

So he's not opposite to him, and he's not evil. Again, it seems you've chosen one of the two options I gave.


And God himself is neither evil nor good, although drowning humanity in a Flood is a rather buttholy thing to do.

Well he would have to be both. Everything that is, everything that exists, could exist, would exist, has existed, will occur, has occurred, has been under the permission and will of god. Therefore, if god had no evil, and did not create evil, there would be no evil. But there is.

The whole thing about Satan being a kind of opposite power to God is a rather late Christian view of biblical theology
The was kinda the point of the thread...originally.

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.

that was from the OP.

satan is not a god because in christian/jewish/islamic theology there is only one god and he is the creator of the universe. satan creates nothing. he is just a powerful supernatural being.

what did zeus create? as i recall zeus, hades, and poseidon really just took over an already existing creation and divided up rule of it by drawing lots.

If you're not a Christian, does the OP really matter?

Ah, but why has Satan, the accuser, to be an avatar of God? He does not do "evil" at all, he just does the job he was assigned by God (cf Iob). He does what he does to bring out the evil in humans, he leads people into temptation to see how they will behave.

it's not really 'temptation' to slaughter a man's entire family through the use of your control over the forces of nature...

and, of course, the bible has satan tempting god himself, which is curious, to say the least.

The whole thing about Satan being a kind of opposite power to God is a rather late Christian view of biblical theology

but that idea exists. those that hold it are not monotheists, because they believe there is more than just one deity.

it's not really 'temptation' to slaughter a man's entire family through the use of your control over the forces of nature...

and, of course, the bible has satan tempting god himself, which is curious, to say the least.

but that idea exists. those that hold it are not monotheists, because they believe there is more than just one deity.

ummm... Satan is not God, imho. If he's not a god, and we don't worship Satan, you can't add him to the "pantheon of Gods" for me.

If you're not a Christian, does the OP really matter?

Yes, because it's fun. =)

ummm... Satan is not God, imho. If he's not a god, and we don't worship Satan, you can't add him to the "pantheon of Gods" for me.

Argh. DIETY. Deity damnit. I only posted the definition a frillion times >_<

Satan is not God, but he's a god. God is a name, god is a title. To avoid confusion, god = deity.

Also, it's been said before - you don't have to worship a god for him to exist in your religion, you simply have to acknowledge his existence. You, or should I say christianity as a whole, acknowledges that Satan exists.

ummm... Satan is not God, imho. If he's not a god, and we don't worship Satan, you can't add him to the "pantheon of Gods" for me.

For you personally, no, but for "Christianity" it is possible. With all the power attributed to lucifer/satan/the devil/ect today one can very well make the argument that he is a god in his own right, even if he is feared rather than worshiped.

But even the "worshiped" aspect is filled if you make the case that satanism is a branch of christianity.

Yes, because it's fun. =)



Argh. DIETY. Deity damnit. I only posted the definition a frillion times >_<

Satan is not God, but he's a god. God is a name, god is a title. To avoid confusion, god = deity.

Also, it's been said before - you don't have to worship a god for him to exist in your religion, you simply have to acknowledge his existence. You, or should I say christianity as a whole, acknowledges that Satan exists.

Satan, in Christianity, is no more of a god than I am.

Satan, in Christianity, is no more of a god than I am.

You didn't rise against God with a third of his angels, survive, create a base out of the land in which you were cast into and begin terrorizing the earth from there. You also have no control over how people are treated after they're judged to hell. You have no antichrist. You are not able to inhabit the bodies of humans and have them do your bidding. You have no army of demons at your command. You haven't the ability to speak directly to god and have him speak back. You aren't called the dark lord.

And you're nowhere near being the avatar of evil. Satan, at most, is - and at least, comes a close second to god himself.

You haven't the ability to speak directly to god and have him speak back.

Gee, I speak to him all the time, and He never says anything about you.

Gee, I speak to him all the time, and He never says anything about you.

-_- BS. You've never held a conversation about Job and made a bet on whether or not he would still be loyal to God if his life sucked.

Gee, I speak to him all the time, and He never says anything about you.
And here I thought you were taking your pills when you actual said you weren't a god...

what did zeus create? as i recall zeus, hades, and poseidon really just took over an already existing creation and divided up rule of it by drawing lots.

zeus is a god not because he meets the christian definition of god, he obviously doesnt

zeus is a god because the greeks called him a god.

you cannot use one religion's definition of god to define another religions supernatural beings as gods. they are only gods within their own system. in many religions the term god doesnt apply well at all.

zeus is a god not because he meets the christian definition of god, he obviously doesnt

zeus is a god because the greeks called him a god.

you cannot use one religion's definition of god to define another religions supernatural beings as gods. they are only gods within their own system. in many religions the term god doesnt apply well at all.

ASHY. SHADDUP. DEITY. ZEUS IS A DEITY. STOP USING THE SAME STUPID ARGUMENT YOU'VE BEEN USING THE WHOLE THREAD.


>_<

Dear christ, I didn't think people with such high postcounts could ignore such vital information such as which subject we're actually talking about.

Deity. We're using 'deity'. There is not only one deity in c/j/i, but there is just one deity NAMED god. One does not have to create anything to be a deity, but simply to be an avatar of an aspect of the universe.

your use of the word deity as seperate from the idea of god doesnt fit in the christian theological system.



No, god created the tsunami. Was the tsunami, then, good? It seems you're suggesting that Satan is simply the tool of god which lures men into evil, which is a creation of god. Again, you could just say that, it's one of the options.



With this it seems to suggest you believe the same as Ashmoria, that god is the avatar of evil, and Satan simply works for him.


god created a world where tsunamis happen. god created a world where many bad things happen. they are neither good nor evil; they are just bad things that happen.

satan is a complicated figure because he barely exists in the bible. his mythos is both part of the non-biblical jewish traditions and stolen ideas taken from other european religions. which is why hell is sometimes called hades for the greek god of the underworld and has become a place where the souls of the bad go after death--a view not well supported by the bible alone.

but satan is never god's evil henchman doing the terrible things that god doesnt want associated with his name. satan is the tempter who wants us to make the same choice he did (in nonbiblical jewish tradition) and reject god by doing the evil things that occur to us that we know we shouldnt do.

ASHY. SHADDUP. DEITY. ZEUS IS A DEITY. STOP USING THE SAME STUPID ARGUMENT YOU'VE BEEN USING THE WHOLE THREAD.


>_<

Dear christ, I didn't think people with such high postcounts could ignore such vital information such as which subject we're actually talking about.

why would i suddenly stop being right?

zeus is a god not because he meets the christian definition of godthere's a definition??

No, god created the tsunami. Was the tsunami, then, good?

No. In Christianity and Judaism, God is not in the tsunami. It's not God's fault or will that the tsunami occurred - we live in a system that's running itself, and we live in a state of free will within it.

The Lord said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by." Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.

Then a voice said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?

there's a definition??

im not sure that definition is the word in christianity but in the christian/jewish/islamic theological systems there is only ONE god and he is the creator of the universe. their religions seek to understand this god and what he wants from us.

as im sure you know, this monotheistic definition of god as sole creative force of the universe has led christians to write some amazingly disrepectful things about other types of theological systems.

to such christian writers, the greeks and romans were delusional because they had a polytheisitic system of severely flawed gods. the hindus are either delusional or misled by satan.

perhaps you have heard a christian preacher say such things about hindus at some time in your life. its comes not just from the attitude of ones own religion being right but also from forcing christianity's definition of god onto the hindu system and having their god's come up short because of it.

its wrong to use the christian definition of god to diss hinduism and it would be equally wrong to use a hindu definition of god to diss christianity, insisting that they have gods that they clearly dont have.

im not sure that definition is the word in christianity but in the christian/jewish/islamic theological systems there is only ONE god and he is the creator of the universe. their religions seek to understand this god and what he wants from us.

as im sure you know, this monotheistic definition of god as sole creative force of the universe has led christians to write some amazingly disrepectful things about other types of theological systems.

to such christian writers, the greeks and romans were delusional because they had a polytheisitic system of severely flawed gods. the hindus are either delusional or misled by satan.

perhaps you have heard a christian preacher say such things about hindus at some time in your life. its comes not just from the attitude of ones own religion being right but also from forcing christianity's definition of god onto the hindu system and having their god's come up short because of it.

its wrong to use the christian definition of god to diss hinduism and it would be equally wrong to use a hindu definition of god to diss christianity, insisting that they have gods that they clearly dont have.

then why do christians use the same word for the christian god and for other gods? theos/theoi? and subsequently use the word theology?
the fact of the matter is that there has never been any substantial difference between the biblical concept of god and any other concept of god as used in the other ancient Midlle Eastern beliefs. YHVH is only a pretty bad re-interpretation of Enki/Yah, and just because Christians and Jews say that their god is not as the other gods does not mean that it is in fact so.

then why do christians use the same word for the christian god and for other gods? theos/theoi? and subsequently use the word theology?
the fact of the matter is that there has never been any substantial difference between the biblical concept of god and any other concept of god as used in the other ancient Midlle Eastern beliefs. YHVH is only a pretty bad re-interpretation of Enki/Yah, and just because Christians and Jews say that their god is not as the other gods does not mean that it is in fact so.

i dont know why they use the same word. why they act as if "GOD" is god's name.

i dont know anything about any other ancient monotheisms. God may well be the same as enki/yah, it means nothing to me. but he is NOT the same as zeus, chronos, uranos, jupiter, ra, odin or any other god from any polytheistic religion.

ya know, UB, you seem to have quite the attachment to this enki/yah god idea. it sometimes seems as if you have taken it as a personal affront that his godliness was appropriated by the ancient hebrews. as if it is some kind of copyright infringement.


its not like enki/yah is real. why such an attachment to him?

your use of the word deity as seperate from the idea of god doesnt fit in the christian theological system.

that's nice. so?

your view that the word 'god' is meaningless except within a particular religion has yet to be supported or even enacted for yourself.

but he is NOT the same as zeus, chronos, uranos, jupiter, ra, odin or any other god from any polytheistic religion.

you claim that, but you never explain it.

you claim that, but you never explain it.

Technically, if you're a Christian or a Jew, there are no other gods. They are "false gods". Read your Old Testament. An altar built for sacrifice to Baal is just an alter to a god that does not exist. A golden calf built to worship another "god" is just a golden statue.

There's just "God". And if you're a Christian who is trinitarian, you believe that God has three aspects of one whole: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

If you're a Unitarian Christian, there's just God.

Technically, if you're a Christian or a Jew, there are no other gods. They are "false gods". Read your Old Testament. An altar built for sacrifice to Baal is just an alter to a god that does not exist. A golden calf built to worship another "god" is just a golden statue.

There's just "God". And if you're a Christian who is trinitarian, you believe that God has three aspects of one whole: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

If you're a Unitarian Christian, there's just God.
your still not explaining why zues and company are different.

you claim that, but you never explain it.

of course i have. you just cant be bothered to process what ive written.

do you want to tell him how in the world you might be able to claim that the sole creator of the universe is the same as a powerful randy guy who throws lightning bolts?

your still not explaining why zues and company are different.

Because they are "false gods" in the Christian religion. They are just names that have no corresponding truth.

In the same sense that Bottle may say, "The Christian God is an imaginary thing, like the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus."

that's nice. so?

your view that the word 'god' is meaningless except within a particular religion has yet to be supported or even enacted for yourself.

my claim is that any definition of "God" that can cover all religious concepts that might be translated as "god" for every religion in the entire world is

1) so vague as to hold no real meaning

2) true for no actual religion

my claim is that any definition of "God" that can cover all religious concepts that might be translated as "god" for every religion in the entire world is

1) so vague as to hold no real meaning

2) true for no actual religion

God as a concept is inherently particular to the religion you're talking about. Christianity looks at god one way, Hinduism another. Which is why I always find the "polytheistic/monotheistic" labeling a little silly. The religion is whatever the hell it wants to call itself.

God as a concept is inherently particular to the religion you're talking about. Christianity looks at god one way, Hinduism another. Which is why I always find the "polytheistic/monotheistic" labeling a little silly. The religion is whatever the hell it wants to call itself.

exactly.

this has been my point the entire thread.

to claim that the big brains of NSG can come up with an objective definition of god that will cover all religions is ludicrous at best.

it would have to be able to cover shinto, rastafarianism, hinduism and christianity adequately --this is of itself impossible. AND it would have to be able to be applied to each of these religions, ask "does their god qualify as a god?" and get the right answer (which must be "yes")

your use of the word deity as seperate from the idea of god doesnt fit in the christian theological system.

It's not separate from the idea of god, it IS the idea of god, it's just the idea of THE God, the pronoun god. I'm suggesting we use deity because it's essentially the same thing, with a more clear understanding of what we're working with, while allowing us to not get confused by the christian's lazy habit of not naming their creator.



god created a world where tsunamis happen. god created a world where many bad things happen. they are neither good nor evil; they are just bad things that happen.

But if I created a machine that would create a tsunami and kill 100,000 people, I would be evil, right? How is that any different?

satan is a complicated figure because he barely exists in the bible. his mythos is both part of the non-biblical jewish traditions and stolen ideas taken from other european religions. which is why hell is sometimes called hades for the greek god of the underworld and has become a place where the souls of the bad go after death--a view not well supported by the bible alone.

Granted - much of the christian faith is taken from what the church says. The church expands on what the bible says by the right of their own authority, and people take it as truth, so it becomes part of the religion.

but satan is never god's evil henchman doing the terrible things that god doesnt want associated with his name. satan is the tempter who wants us to make the same choice he did (in nonbiblical jewish tradition) and reject god by doing the evil things that occur to us that we know we shouldnt do.

But God uses Satan, doesn't he? He keeps him alive for a reason. He allows him control over the souls of the damned for a reason. He allows him to tempt for a reason. He's given him a job to do.

No. In Christianity and Judaism, God is not in the tsunami. It's not God's fault or will that the tsunami occurred - we live in a system that's running itself, and we live in a state of free will within it.

We live in a system that is currently running itself based on the way it was created - God created it to be this way.

i dont know why they use the same word. why they act as if "GOD" is god's name.

Which is confusing, so we should switch to deity.

i dont know anything about any other ancient monotheisms. God may well be the same as enki/yah, it means nothing to me. but he is NOT the same as zeus, chronos, uranos, jupiter, ra, odin or any other god from any polytheistic religion.

He is, though. The main difference being that he's the creator, but that creation is just one aspect. He's the avatar of creation, lightning, time, space, the sun, the moon, etc etc... The other deities are the same way, they just don't have a longass resume like God does, but they work in the same field.

Technically, if you're a Christian or a Jew, there are no other gods. They are "false gods". Read your Old Testament. An altar built for sacrifice to Baal is just an alter to a god that does not exist. A golden calf built to worship another "god" is just a golden statue.

Right, but objectively speaking, the word 'deity' does exist, and it encompasses many different religion's gods, including the christian pronoun god.

There's just "God". And if you're a Christian who is trinitarian, you believe that God has three aspects of one whole: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

If you're a Unitarian Christian, there's just God.

Right, but replace 'God' with 'Bob' - There's just Bob. Bob is a deity. If you're a trinitarian, you believe Bob has three aspects of one whole. If you're a unitarian, there's just Bob. Either way, he's a deity, under the same definition of deity that Satan is under.

of course i have. you just cant be bothered to process what ive written.

do you want to tell him how in the world you might be able to claim that the sole creator of the universe is the same as a powerful randy guy who throws lightning bolts?

I already went over that earlier in this post.

Because they are "false gods" in the Christian religion. They are just names that have no corresponding truth.

In the same sense that Bottle may say, "The Christian God is an imaginary thing, like the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus."

Right, but while 'imaginary thing' encompasses pretty much any supernatural being our minds can come up with, 'deity' is reserved for avatars of aspects of the earth. Therefore, God is a deity. There can be no 'false' deities, because they're all just characters taken at face value with no religious context given - look at their status, are they supernatural, do they have an aspect which they alone rule over in their specific pantheon? If so, you've got a deity. If you've got more than one of those things in one faith, you've got polytheism.

my claim is that any definition of "God" that can cover all religious concepts that might be translated as "god" for every religion in the entire world is

1) so vague as to hold no real meaning

2) true for no actual religion

And this, regardless of if it's true or not, is useless information, because 'god' is an invalid term to use in this thread. Deity specifies a being of one or more aspects, and holds true for every religion.

exactly.

this has been my point the entire thread.

to claim that the big brains of NSG can come up with an objective definition of god that will cover all religions is ludicrous at best.

it would have to be able to cover shinto, rastafarianism, hinduism and christianity adequately --this is of itself impossible. AND it would have to be able to be applied to each of these religions, ask "does their god qualify as a god?" and get the right answer (which must be "yes")

No, because while 'god' might be a subjective term to each individual religion, 'deity' has a solid, unchanging definition by which we can measure a religion and see how many deities they have.

No, because while 'god' might be a subjective term to each individual religion, 'deity' has a solid, unchanging definition by which we can measure a religion and see how many deities they have.

Religion is not a science.

They get to make their own definitions, not outsiders.
They don't have to prove anything - that's why it's called "faith" and "belief".

No, because while 'god' might be a subjective term to each individual religion, 'deity' has a solid, unchanging definition by which we can measure a religion and see how many deities they have.

so what you said to RO above wasnt right? that god=deity?

my claim is that any definition of "God" that can cover all religious concepts that might be translated as "god" for every religion in the entire world is

1) so vague as to hold no real meaning

2) true for no actual religion

so what specific problems exist for the dictionary definitons?

the oed says:
"A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see GODDESS) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity."

and the one that was posted here before says:
"any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

what part of this is utterly incomprehensible jibberish? how does it completely and totally fail to capture the essence of gods and/or deities in various religions? how is it too vague to be able to use for anything at all?

stop waving your arms about and get to the point.

so what you said to RO above wasnt right? that god=deity?

I think he meant that the definition of 'deity' includes everything we usually attach to 'God', but it doesn't have the more subjective nuances and implications that 'God' does because it is not associated with a particular religion, while 'god' is.

its not like enki/yah is real.you don't know that.

No, because while 'god' might be a subjective term to each individual religion, 'deity' has a solid, unchanging definition by which we can measure a religion and see how many deities they have.

you can, i suppose, count up the numbers and varieties of supernatural beings recognized by a certain religion. you would probably have to go sect by sect. in some cases individual by individual.

what would it say about anything?

for example, buddhism has no official god but buddhists have more gods than are convenient to count. and that doesnt cover other supernatural beings like demons, buddhas and boddisatvas.

as for christianity, no number of powerful supernatural beings will make it polytheistic. so your insistance on calling satan a deity (which is still wrong) does not change the theology of christianity as you seem to want it to.

so what specific problems exist for the dictionary definitons?

the oed says:
"A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see GODDESS) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity."

and the one that was posted here before says:
"any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

what part of this is utterly incomprehensible jibberish? how does it completely and totally fail to capture the essence of gods and/or deities in various religions? how is it too vague to be able to use for anything at all?

stop waving your arms about and get to the point.

ok. fit haile selassee, the god of rastafarianism, into "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

selasee was the emperor of ethiopia and a christian. he had no supernatural powers. he didnt consider himself a god. you could theoretically dig up his remains and show that he had completely human dna.

the definition fails.

so what specific problems exist for the dictionary definitons?

the oed says:
"A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see GODDESS) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity."

and the one that was posted here before says:
"any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

what part of this is utterly incomprehensible jibberish? how does it completely and totally fail to capture the essence of gods and/or deities in various religions? how is it too vague to be able to use for anything at all?

stop waving your arms about and get to the point.

I think that the problem is that these meanings don't really fit all the ways people see god. For example, several schools of Cristian gnosticism believe that God has chosen not to have 'power over nature and the fortunes of mankind' or is 'controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force'.

They think the devil does this. The Rex Mundi. The reason is that God is immaterial and perfect, and the world is not, so the devil nust have done it. Whatever.

The point is that even within Christianity, we see how these definitions that you provided are not broad enough to include all beliefs about god. But if we were to make them any broader, the definitions would cease to be useful.

you don't know that.

that doesnt answer my question

and, should enki/yah be real, he seems to have no problem with being misappropriated. he hasnt spoken up in 4000 years.

that doesnt answer my question

and, should enki/yah be real, he seems to have no problem with being misappropriated. he hasnt spoken up in 4000 years.

He's sitting around, seething, in his mud hut on the edge of R'lyeh. Cthulhu can't even stand it anymore.

Religion is not a science.

They get to make their own definitions, not outsiders.
They don't have to prove anything - that's why it's called "faith" and "belief".

Yes, they can make their own definitions. They can say deity means fruit pie - doesn't mean they'll be any less wrong for saying so.

so what you said to RO above wasnt right? that god=deity?

For the sake of this specific topic, deity and god are essentially the same in that they can be used interchangeably when deciding whether or not a religion is polytheistic. I.E. If God and Satan are both deities, or if they're both gods, then christianity is polytheistic.

Deity is also useful in this situation, in that it isn't subject to the individual religion to decide whether or not a figure in their faith is a deity. It's just simply, it is or it isn't, based on the information we have about such a figure. So while the religion is allowed to call a pile of rocks their god, but they don't actually attribute it with any powers such as "This pile of rocks created the universe" or "This pile of rocks controls the sea" or anything like that, then it's not a deity, but it's still technically their god - it's their point of worship, but by definition, it's not a deity.

Though in that situation, it's tricky - are they still monotheistic if they don't have ANY deity at all? If they worship a pile of rocks simply because it's a pile of rocks, and has no special or supernatural attributes to it, is it still monotheism?

I suppose yes and no - yes, because they worship it regardless - and no, because it's not a deity.

But there would have to be SOME sort of reason for their worship for this specific pile of rocks, otherwise I could just set up another pile of rocks and call their attention to it - course, they could claim that my pile of rocks was a false pile of rocks and ignore it completely, but it just seems like they would have to have some reason, such as "This pile of rocks is shinier than any other pile of rocks", in which case it could very well be a deity, because the pile of rocks could be the avatar of the aspect of being shiny. As lame as it sounds, it would qualify.



But yes, that's the difference and similarity of 'god' and 'deity'. If you're attempting to decide objectively whether or not a religion is polytheistic, you must use 'deity' as a point of reference.

I want a shiny pile of rocks.:(

Yes, they can make their own definitions. They can say deity means fruit pie - doesn't mean they'll be any less wrong for saying so.

You don't understand.

Religions make their own definitions. Once you start defining what "they" mean by a certain term, you're wrong, and it's no longer that religion.

It's your warped and twisted view of a religion.

By definition, they cannot be wrong about their own definition of their own religion.

You, on the other hand, are automatically wrong if you don't accept their definition.

You know, too many people got on Calvin's bad side for thinking the way you do...

Yes, they can make their own definitions. They can say deity means fruit pie - doesn't mean they'll be any less wrong for saying so.

if a religion worshipped fruit pie and proclaimed it a god, not unlike, i believe, some native american religions worshipping corn as a god, then it is a god. their definition, their god.


For the sake of this specific topic, deity and god are essentially the same in that they can be used interchangeably when deciding whether or not a religion is polytheistic. I.E. If God and Satan are both deities, or if they're both gods, then christianity is polytheistic.
Deity is also useful in this situation, in that it isn't subject to the individual religion to decide whether or not a figure in their faith is a deity. It's just simply, it is or it isn't, based on the information we have about such a figure. So while the religion is allowed to call a pile of rocks their god, but they don't actually attribute it with any powers such as "This pile of rocks created the universe" or "This pile of rocks controls the sea" or anything like that, then it's not a deity, but it's still technically their god - it's their point of worship, but by definition, it's not a deity.

Though in that situation, it's tricky - are they still monotheistic if they don't have ANY deity at all? If they worship a pile of rocks simply because it's a pile of rocks, and has no special or supernatural attributes to it, is it still monotheism?

I suppose yes and no - yes, because they worship it regardless - and no, because it's not a deity.

But there would have to be SOME sort of reason for their worship for this specific pile of rocks, otherwise I could just set up another pile of rocks and call their attention to it - course, they could claim that my pile of rocks was a false pile of rocks and ignore it completely, but it just seems like they would have to have some reason, such as "This pile of rocks is shinier than any other pile of rocks", in which case it could very well be a deity, because the pile of rocks could be the avatar of the aspect of being shiny. As lame as it sounds, it would qualify.



But yes, that's the difference and similarity of 'god' and 'deity'. If you're attempting to decide objectively whether or not a religion is polytheistic, you must use 'deity' as a point of reference.


that is just silly. its not up to YOU to decide whose supernatural beings are powerful enough to qualify as gods. its up to THEM. insisting on using deity instead of god to muddy the water doesnt change that.

if you are not taking the actual theology of a particular religion into consideration then you will be mistaken about how you classify it.

the only way you can claim that christianity is polytheistic is by knowing nothing about its theology.

I think he meant that the definition of 'deity' includes everything we usually attach to 'God', but it doesn't have the more subjective nuances and implications that 'God' does because it is not associated with a particular religion, while 'god' is.

Essentially.

you can, i suppose, count up the numbers and varieties of supernatural beings recognized by a certain religion. you would probably have to go sect by sect. in some cases individual by individual.

what would it say about anything?

for example, buddhism has no official god but buddhists have more gods than are convenient to count. and that doesnt cover other supernatural beings like demons, buddhas and boddisatvas.

as for christianity, no number of powerful supernatural beings will make it polytheistic. so your insistance on calling satan a deity (which is still wrong) does not change the theology of christianity as you seem to want it to.

Well now you're getting into something else entirely. When you decide to separate what the individuals belonging to the religion believe vs what the religion actually says, you have to do it separately. I.E. If the religion says you must be at peace within yourself and find a middle ground within the world to reach nirvana, then it's not a religion, it's a tradition and a philosophy - but with the individual, if he believes that, as well as "Oh and you have to kill the giant snakeman Grrndi as well", then Grrndi becomes a point of reference - does Grrndi rule over an aspect of the world? Is he the avatar of giant snakemen? You have to ask these questions to figure these things out.

ok. fit haile selassee, the god of rastafarianism, into "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

selasee was the emperor of ethiopia and a christian. he had no supernatural powers. he didnt consider himself a god. you could theoretically dig up his remains and show that he had completely human dna.

the definition fails.

He is, effectively, a pile of rocks, then. The question you need to ask is "What's special about this one guy that he deserves worship - what aspect of the universe does he rule over?" if nothing, he's not a deity, and while I suppose by the loosest definitions of such, it would still be a religion, I would think it to be more accurate to call it a practice, or a tradition, because they haven't actually attached anything supernatural to their god to warrant it being called a religion.

I want a shiny pile of rocks.:(

You should pray to the Shiny Pile Of Rocks to get a shiny pile of rocks.

You don't understand.

Religions make their own definitions. Once you start defining what "they" mean by a certain term, you're wrong, and it's no longer that religion.

It's your warped and twisted view of a religion.

By definition, they cannot be wrong about their own definition of their own religion.

You, on the other hand, are automatically wrong if you don't accept their definition.

You know, too many people got on Calvin's bad side for thinking the way you do...

Uh, no. Religions are subject to the language they use, and the translations of such language. They can't call something a pie if it's not a pie, and if they do, they're just wrong, I don't care what their religion says, unless by 'pie' they mean something supernatural and attribute something to it other than "it's a circular pastry with a flaky crust and fruit filling". Pie is pie, unless they specifically say "Hey, when we say pie, we don't mean pie, we mean Pie. It's totally different."

Religion is not some magical thing that makes you correct. If anything, it's the opposite.

He is, effectively, a pile of rocks, then. The question you need to ask is "What's special about this one guy that he deserves worship - what aspect of the universe does he rule over?" if nothing, he's not a deity, and while I suppose by the loosest definitions of such, it would still be a religion, I would think it to be more accurate to call it a practice, or a tradition, because they haven't actually attached anything supernatural to their god to warrant it being called a religion.


no

haile selasee is the god of rastafarianism because they say he is. to deny that its a religion and that he is a god is to diss rastafarianism.

he meets THEIR definition (but not his own). thats good enough.

if a religion worshipped fruit pie and proclaimed it a god, not unlike, i believe, some native american religions worshipping corn as a god, then it is a god. their definition, their god.

And for them, the corn god makes sense. It's the deity of corn, ruling over the world's aspect of corn, being the avatar of corn. It qualifies. Same for fruit pie.

that is just silly. its not up to YOU to decide whose supernatural beings are powerful enough to qualify as gods. its up to THEM. insisting on using deity instead of god to muddy the water doesnt change that.

It's not about being powerful enough. Being the avatar of corn isn't really something you can brag about - sure, you're popular in Nebraska, but it's still corn.

It's just a simple question of whether or not this specific god they've created is the avatar of an aspect of the universe. If so, yes. If not, no. Very simple stuff.

if you are not taking the actual theology of a particular religion into consideration then you will be mistaken about how you classify it.

the only way you can claim that christianity is polytheistic is by knowing nothing about its theology.

Or by realizing that Satan may qualify as a deity.

Or by realizing that Satan may qualify as a deity.


except that he doesnt qualify inside christianity. thats all that matters.

there are quite a few supernatural beings in christianity who would meet your definition. archangels, the virgin mary, maybe even moses who could perform supernatural feats.

they still arent gods. that they would easily qualify as god if you could transfer them to the greek/roman system means nothing. all that matters is how they fit into christian theology which is NOT as gods.

no

haile selasee is the god of rastafarianism because they say he is. to deny that its a religion and that he is a god is to diss rastafarianism.

he meets THEIR definition (but not his own). thats good enough.

So what is their definition? Do you know? Have you done research on what makes this guy so special?

Doing a quick wiki search on rastafarianism, you get this:

"Rasta, or the Rastafari movement, is a religion that accepts Haile Selassie I, the former Emperor of Ethiopia, as God incarnate, whom they call Jah.[1] He is also seen as part of the Holy Trinity as the messiah promised in the Bible to return."

They don't think that guy is a god, they think God is that guy. Note the pronoun. It's an offshoot of christianity, much like Islam.

Therefore, he does qualify as a deity, because as we've gone over, God qualifies as a deity, and they believe he's God.

ok. fit haile selassee, the god of rastafarianism, into "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

selasee was the emperor of ethiopia and a christian. he had no supernatural powers. he didnt consider himself a god. you could theoretically dig up his remains and show that he had completely human dna.

the definition fails.

nobody has supernatural powers. however, in the rastafari movement they delusionally think he did (and that he didn't die). their religion, while stupid, counts him as a deity. your argument here is a (fallacious) argument that there aren't any gods in any religion, because no such entities actually exist.

see that part of the definition where it says 'worshipped as...'? that'd be the important bit that renders this complaint irrelevant. care to try again?

except that he doesnt qualify inside christianity. thats all that matters.

there are quite a few supernatural beings in christianity who would meet your definition. archangels, the virgin mary, maybe even moses who could perform supernatural feats.

they still arent gods. that they would easily qualify as god if you could transfer them to the greek/roman system means nothing. all that matters is how they fit into christian theology which is NOT as gods.

No, I don't know of anything that the virgin Mary qualifies as. She's not a deity because she's not the avatar of anything.

Tell me what the Archangels could be the avatars of that God isn't already the avatar of. Please.

The only two figures in christianity that can possibly be avatars are God and Satan.

No, I don't know of anything that the virgin Mary qualifies as. She's not a deity because she's not the avatar of anything.

Tell me what the Archangels could be the avatars of that God isn't already the avatar of. Please.

The only two figures in christianity that can possibly be avatars are God and Satan.

good lord you sure know alot about a religion you obviously know nothing about.

im sure it amuses you that you can make up a definition of polytheism that includes christianity. have fun with it.

but dont pretend that it is anything but sophistry. without an understanding of christian theology you cannot begin to justify changing its classification. inventing a loophole just isnt enough.

nobody has supernatural powers. however, in the rastafari movement they delusionally think he did (and that he didn't die). their religion, while stupid, counts him as a deity. your argument here is a (fallacious) argument that there aren't any gods in any religion, because no such entities actually exist.

see that part of the definition where it says 'worshipped as...'? that'd be the important bit that renders this complaint irrelevant. care to try again?

Actually you missed her point. Her point was that, because the Rastafarians view that guy as their god, he meets their definition god, despite whatever definitions of god and deity you want to toss around.

nobody has supernatural powers. however, in the rastafari movement they delusionally think he did (and that he didn't die). their religion, while stupid, counts him as a deity. your argument here is a (fallacious) argument that there aren't any gods in any religion, because no such entities actually exist.

see that part of the definition where it says 'worshipped as...'? that'd be the important bit that renders this complaint irrelevant. care to try again?

if you are going to discuss this with me you need to pay attention to what i say. i use short sentences with mostly small words, its not that hard.

what i SAID was that he doesnt meet THAT simple definition of a god. due to his complete humanity. due to his having no powers, no personal connection to rastafarianism, due to his being a freaking christian.

THE DEFINITION FAILS

i have no particular opinion on selassee's fitness as the god of rastafarianism. i have only a cursory understanding of their theology. they say he is a god, thats good enough for me. as a non-rastafarian, it doesnt matter to me who they worship or why.

good lord you sure know alot about a religion you obviously know nothing about.

im sure it amuses you that you can make up a definition of polytheism that includes christianity. have fun with it.

but dont pretend that it is anything but sophistry. without an understanding of christian theology you cannot begin to justify changing its classification. inventing a loophole just isnt enough.

I notice you didn't actually answer my questions or retort anything I said. Nice doj.

I have a pretty wide knowledge of christian theology and history. I'm not sure where you're getting this accusations of ignorance from.

The word 'deity' exists whether you acknowledge it or not. It can objectively decide whether or not a religion is polytheistic, no matter how long you hold your breath or shake your fists.

Actually you missed her point. Her point was that, because the Rastafarians view that guy as their god, he meets their definition god, despite whatever definitions of god and deity you want to toss around.

Actually, he fits the definitions of god and God and deity. See my last post about him.

if you are going to discuss this with me you need to pay attention to what i say. i use short sentences with mostly small words, its not that hard.

what i SAID was that he doesnt meet THAT simple definition of a god. due to his complete humanity. due to his having no powers, no personal connection to rastafarianism, due to his being a freaking christian.

THE DEFINITION FAILS

i have no particular opinion on selassee's fitness as the god of rastafarianism. i have only a cursory understanding of their theology. they say he is a god, thats good enough for me. as a non-rastafarian, it doesnt matter to me who they worship or why.

Oh Christ, and you say I'm ignorant of the religion we're talking about, you tell others to listen to what you say...

I already told you! They believe he was God, not a god, not god, not goody, fucking God - Gee Oh Dee - Christian God, incarnate, on earth. That's why they worship him. He fits the definition. The definition does not fail, your reading and research comprehension fails.

The devil is not a god because he requires Gods permission to directly act on the earth. In the book of Job he has to ask God's permission to torment Job, God gave Satan permission to torment Job in order to demonstrate the loyalty of man to God.

that doesnt answer my questionthe point is that jews (not hebrews nor israelites!) have taken this god and took him in possession, in a way. and yes, it is kind of a copyright infringement, after all they are distorting much more ancient traditions in order to make those their own (e.g. putting the tower of babel thing into their holy book, just as if any hebrews, israelites, or jews ever had anything to do with it).

and, should enki/yah be real, he seems to have no problem with being misappropriated. he hasnt spoken up in 4000 years.well, enki is not like the jealous biblical god who is constantly attention-whoring in the bible. humanity has never been the focus of sumerian/mesopotamian gods, like it is the focus of the biblical story.
and if he hasn't spoken to anyone is something you cannot know either.

The devil is not a god because he requires Gods permission to directly act on the earth. In the book of Job he has to ask God's permission to torment Job, God gave Satan permission to torment Job in order to demonstrate the loyalty of man to God.

Good point, but does that mean God gives him permission to possess humans a la Exorcist? Because it then requires the power of God to remove him from the victim, so it seems backandforth pointless, there.

As far as I knew, the Archangels acted on their own will, without God's permission, and I assumed that carried over when he became Satan.

The devil is not a god because he requires Gods permission to directly act on the earth. In the book of Job he has to ask God's permission to torment Job, God gave Satan permission to torment Job in order to demonstrate the loyalty of man to God.But what about the original sin? Did Satan have God's permission to bring about the Fall of Man?

But what about the original sin? Did Satan have God's permission to bring about the Fall of Man?

I'm assuming he did. I mean, Eden was perfect - no worries, no age, no problems, everything you want right there, you can have a direct conversation with god pretty much whenever you choose - OH EXCEPT FOR THIS SATAN SNAKE NEXT TO THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT OF DOOM.

Yeah it seems planned out.

Yeah it seems planned out.So God wanted Man to fall?

So God wanted Man to fall?

Seems to be.

I mean, what was his plan if we didn't? Just.. hang out in Eden for eternity? With two people? Fuck that woulda gotten boring, for everyone. Seems like that would've defeated the point of even creating them in the first place.

if you are going to discuss this with me you need to pay attention to what i say. i use short sentences with mostly small words, its not that hard.

what i SAID was that he doesnt meet THAT simple definition of a god. due to his complete humanity. due to his having no powers, no personal connection to rastafarianism, due to his being a freaking christian.

THE DEFINITION FAILS

i have no particular opinion on selassee's fitness as the god of rastafarianism. i have only a cursory understanding of their theology. they say he is a god, thats good enough for me. as a non-rastafarian, it doesnt matter to me who they worship or why.

the figure they believe selassee to be and who selassee actually was are two different things. only the first is a god. again, "worshipped as..." and, of course, the same applies to every god everywhere. if there actually was a jesus, he was just some dude. but 'some dude' jesus isn't the jesus in question when talking about jesus the god. your proposed flaw is nonexistent.

maybe i was unclear, but this is what i meant before.

The devil is not a god because he requires Gods permission to directly act on the earth. In the book of Job he has to ask God's permission to torment Job, God gave Satan permission to torment Job in order to demonstrate the loyalty of man to God.

so when jesus has to personally cast out demons (which are taken to be minions of satan and do his bidding), that was just a bit of indecisiveness on god's part?

i'd say it looks more like the devil is independently powerful, but not as powerful as the other gods like jesus and yhwh.

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 gods in many religions often aren't omnipotent.

It's late, and I havn't got time for a full response, but there seems to be some fundemental misunderstanding, and the lumping of distinctly Catholic doctrines with those of other branches of Christianity.
Catholicism has often been labeled as 'Polytheistic' by its detractors in the other Abrahamic religions, often because the fundemetal diffrence of Worship and Devotion is overlooked. Worship is reserved for God alone, but devotion is the admiration and recompence gained by holding up others e.g Mary as examples of how lives should be led. As for the devil, it (by whatever quantifiable means you want to attribute 'it' to' is not a God, because by definition it was created by the all powerful, and therefore cannot be a God in itself, but an aspect of creation. One must look back to the older biblical storys circulating in the Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian books, and certain Judean bodys such as the Pharisees who belived in evil spirits, and as such pre-empted 'Satan' as we recognise in our commo presentation. There are key distinctions, Satan is omnipresent but not all powerful, good prevails over evil, he can be overcome, e.g. St Micheal in the Catholic Tradition. While I've tried to remain impartial, and I've tried to be short, in doing so perhaps not answering as I would like, there are distinctions, which can be overcome with some detailed reading...as I said, I just skimed the first page, and will try to get back...as for the previous post, yes, but we are talking Christianity, in which God is omnipotent, so that arguement is void within our framework for argument.

It's late, and I havn't got time for a full response, but there seems to be some fundemental misunderstanding, and the lumping of distinctly Catholic doctrines with those of other branches of Christianity.
Catholicism has often been labeled as 'Polytheistic' by its detractors in the other Abrahamic religions, often because the fundemetal diffrence of Worship and Devotion is overlooked. Worship is reserved for God alone, but devotion is the admiration and recompence gained by holding up others e.g Mary as examples of how lives should be led. As for the devil, it (by whatever quantifiable means you want to attribute 'it' to' is not a God, because by definition it was created by the all powerful, and therefore cannot be a God in itself, but an aspect of creation. One must look back to the older biblical storys circulating in the Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian books, and certain Judean bodys such as the Pharisees who belived in evil spirits, and as such pre-empted 'Satan' as we recognise in our commo presentation. There are key distinctions, Satan is omnipresent but not all powerful, good prevails over evil, he can be overcome, e.g. St Micheal in the Catholic Tradition. While I've tried to remain impartial, and I've tried to be short, in doing so perhaps not answering as I would like, there are distinctions, which can be overcome with some detailed reading, and some of the misconceptions can be overcome...

Except in many faiths and mythologies, several gods were created by other gods, either through procreation or through simply creating things in the manner that gods do. The fact that Satan was created by Yahweh alone doesn't disqualify Satan from being a god.

As for the devil, it (by whatever quantifiable means you want to attribute 'it' to' is not a God, because by definition it was created by the all powerful, and therefore cannot be a God in itself, but an aspect of creation.

skipping the obvious reply based on other pantheons, i have a one word response:
jesus

Except in many faiths and mythologies, several gods were created by other gods, either through procreation or through simply creating things in the manner that gods do. The fact that Satan was created by Yahweh alone doesn't disqualify Satan from being a god.

nor does the fact that he can be bested by other deities, considering the various struggles of other gods

so when jesus has to personally cast out demons (which are taken to be minions of satan and do his bidding), that was just a bit of indecisiveness on god's part?

i'd say it looks more like the devil is independently powerful, but not as powerful as the other gods like jesus and yhwh.

man i love these threads, i mean i've only looked at the first and last page, and the first page was all nice and civil,...flip to the last page, and i feel the need to call a fireman with all the flamings going on.

It seems to me part of the argument has to do with the a misconception of what free will actually is. Let me break it down on the whole devil argument.


Free will is essentially the ability to Deny God's existance and deny his commandments. Something alot of people do on a daily basis. Speaking as a Christian here, God is the one true God, and all others have been made up as the world has progressed from the Babel. The ability to deny god, is something the Angel's cannot do.

Lucifer aka the devil, aka most unclean, etc, was Gods favorite angel. Lucifer was the most beautiful angel ever created. He never denied God, he told god that he was no longer needed, and some angles sided with Lucifer and most with God causing a war in heaven. Michael, going with the catholic version on this, fought lucifer and cast him from heaven along with all his followers.

Lucifer is a sentient being, he \can pretty much do as he pleases. He can affect your life any way he wants. The whole adam and eve thing, wasnt, planned out by God, but God knew it was going to happen. He gave us the ability to use our free will, knowing full well what the outcome would be. The Serpent is Identified as Satan in the Book of Revelations. God said to Satan after Adam and Eve ate from the tree, in Genesis 3:15 "I will put emnity between your offspring and hers, he will crush your head and you will strike his heel" What we have here, is the first Prophecy pertaining to Jesus Christ. See when God gave us free will, he knew we wouldnt be able to live up to his commandments. Our own nature pulls us away from God.

This is where Jesus comes in. Jesus came to earth in around 3 BC (The calender is off). Jesus had existed since the beggining. He was part of the trinity from the beginning. But god took on flesh, in the form of a babe and we called him Jesus, (which is infact his Greek Name, i think his hebrew name was Emanuel? ((anyone know?)) ) Jesus is the only human being to live a sin free life. See sin, is basically us turning from God and his commandments. Jesus, never sinned in his life.

Now God has always asked for Sacrifice as repayment of sins, going back to Abraham. God gave him a commandment and Abraham would have sacrificed his own son but God was only testing him and told him to instead sacrifice a Lamb, which he did. And Jews would constantly sacrifice animals for repayment of sins. This is wher ethe whole Sacrifice on teh Cross comes into play. God did what he stopped Abraham from doing, and sacrificed his own son, and on him placed the sins of the world current and all future sins. Chirst was crucified, for our sins. as john 3:16 states "For God so loved the world that he gavr his only begotten son, so that those who believe in him may not perish but have eternal life."

And romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal Life in Christ Jesus our Lord"

Those who die with sin on their concience cannot enter heaven. But by accepting Christ sacrifice your sins our forgivin.

Now this is where the Devil comes back into play. People think the Devil is trying to defeat God. But thats a common misconeption. Satan has read the back of the book just like the rest of us. He knows he's gonna lose. So now, his purpose, is to deter as many of us as possible from knowing God. Basically the "I'm going down and im taking as many as i can with me" approach. But through faith in Jesus Christ, he has no power over your soul. Yeah he can make your life pretty damn hard, but he cant stop your salvation.

skipping the obvious reply based on other pantheons, i have a one word response:
jesus

Jesus, or better yet known as "the word who was with God" has existed from the begginning, he didnt just start existing when Jesus was born, he had always existed but came to earth in the form of a babe.

It's late, and I havn't got time for a full response, but there seems to be some fundemental misunderstanding, and the lumping of distinctly Catholic doctrines with those of other branches of Christianity.
Catholicism has often been labeled as 'Polytheistic' by its detractors in the other Abrahamic religions, often because the fundemetal diffrence of Worship and Devotion is overlooked. Worship is reserved for God alone, but devotion is the admiration and recompence gained by holding up others e.g Mary as examples of how lives should be led. As for the devil, it (by whatever quantifiable means you want to attribute 'it' to' is not a God, because by definition it was created by the all powerful, and therefore cannot be a God in itself, but an aspect of creation. One must look back to the older biblical storys circulating in the Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian books, and certain Judean bodys such as the Pharisees who belived in evil spirits, and as such pre-empted 'Satan' as we recognise in our commo presentation. There are key distinctions, Satan is omnipresent but not all powerful, good prevails over evil, he can be overcome, e.g. St Micheal in the Catholic Tradition. While I've tried to remain impartial, and I've tried to be short, in doing so perhaps not answering as I would like, there are distinctions, which can be overcome with some detailed reading...as I said, I just skimed the first page, and will try to get back...as for the previous post, yes, but we are talking Christianity, in which God is omnipotent, so that arguement is void within our framework for argument.

umm....actually, Satan isn't omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time, because he is an angel, not a God.

See you know how Catholics see Mary every where, you know Mary's in a toster, Mary's on a tortia, etc? Protestants See Satan everywhere. If Satan had actually done anything to these people he probably just woke them up that mornin, and they took it from there. Now im not saying the devil doesnt do things, but alot of things people like to blame on the devil, are really just crap that happens from living on earth, like i've heard a fellow christian of mine say that Satan caused him to lose his job. and i had to turn around and say "No your INCOMPETENCE, made you lose your job, sitting around laughing and goofing off while your supposed to be working, was probably the reason.

Jesus, or better yet known as "the word who was with God" has existed from the begginning, he didnt just start existing when Jesus was born, he had always existed but came to earth in the form of a babe.

Kinda like Krishna couple millenia before him. Funny that.

Kinda like Krishna couple millenia before him. Funny that.

actually, the Hindu Religions, age hasnt been documented, infact alot of the Hindu religion has no fact to support it, where as the Jewish and Christian Religion, has been documented incredibly far back. And also, The age of The Hebrew religions have been questioned alot over the difference, between Human time and Gods time. The 6 "days" that it took to create the world, could have been billions of years each, because they were infact Days to Gods perspective, and no one knows how long that actually is

actually, the Hindu Religions, age hasnt been documented, infact alot of the Hindu religion has no fact to support it, where as the Jewish and Christian Religion, has been documented incredibly far back. And also, The age of The Hebrew religions have been questioned alot over the difference, between Human time and Gods time. The 6 "days" that it took to create the world, could have been billions of years each, because they were infact Days to Gods perspective, and no one knows how long that actually is

Ah, so your own book lets you stretch the timeline however it suits the evidence. How convenient.

Of course, your statement about the lack of documentation is, how you say, full of shit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#History

Ah, so your own book lets you stretch the timeline however it suits the evidence. How convenient.

Of course, your statement about the lack of documentation is, how you say, full of shit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#History



ah si you missunderstand me, or maybe i mispoke, i didnt mean as in how long people have been practicing the religion being undocumentable.. i meant in the events and dates spoke of in its religious texts being undocumentable. Granted i dont know much about the Hindu religion, but the most evidence, ive seen of it, besides those who practice it, is teh ornate temples that go with it that are a few thousand years old, but that fits almost any religion. But say take the bible, alot of the events depicted in the bible have been backed by physical evidence, for example, The story of paul on his way to Rome from Jerusalem, they were due to stop in Milan, however Fog had led to the ship getting lost. IT says the ship came to an island they didnt recognized, but saw an inlet in which there was a bay, and at 15 fathoms, they dropped 4 anchors and went ashore because they were lost.

A few years ago, people using the bible as a reference for that found 4 anchors at a depth of 15 fathoms which is roughly 90 feet i think, off the coast of milan, i think it was the bay of St Thomas, dating to be around 2000 years old, exactly where the bible said they would be


and im not stretching any time, because you have to actually have a grasp on how much time your strecthing to do so, this is just something thats being debated by many christian scholars at the moment



BUT! While were on the subject of Hinduism,...lets look at the site you gave me.

"A conglomerate of diverse beliefs and traditions, Hinduism has no known founder."


well gee...so if its just a mix of beliefs and traditions, how can you really know when it was started, i mean,... every other religion start with one specific event, or something along those lines. i mean you can pull anything with that,... "Hey man, i believe this," "yeah but Joe a few hundred years ago, said something like this.." "well hey lets put our things together and make or religion a few hundred years older"


sorry for the skepticism,

oh and another thing

"Hinduism is an extremely diverse religion. There are several schools of philosophies in the religion that overlap, although any universal belief is impossible to identify"

hey, dont most sects have to have certain universal truths to be concidered part of the same religion, could it just be that its not actually a religion, but more of a record of all the beliefs that people held in a certain area, just all slumped together? maybe?

ah si you missunderstand me, or maybe i mispoke, i didnt mean as in how long people have been practicing the religion being undocumentable.. i meant in the events and dates spoke of in its religious texts being undocumentable. Granted i dont know much about the Hindu religion, but the most evidence, ive seen of it, besides those who practice it, is teh ornate temples that go with it that are a few thousand years old, but that fits almost any religion. But say take the bible, alot of the events depicted in the bible have been backed by physical evidence, for example, The story of paul on his way to Rome from Jerusalem, they were due to stop in Milan, however Fog had led to the ship getting lost. IT says the ship came to an island they didnt recognized, but saw an inlet in which there was a bay, and at 15 fathoms, they dropped 4 anchors and went ashore because they were lost.

A few years ago, people using the bible as a reference for that found 4 anchors at a depth of 15 fathoms which is roughly 90 feet i think, off the coast of milan, i think it was the bay of St Thomas, dating to be around 2000 years old, exactly where the bible said they would be


and im not stretching any time, because you have to actually have a grasp on how much time your strecthing to do so, this is just something thats being debated by many christian scholars at the moment

Of course, you're comparing historical data from the first few centuries AD to historical data that took place several millenia before that. Have you found Eden yet? Hell, there's sincere historical doubt that Jewish folk were ever enslaved by the Egyptians.

Of course, you're comparing historical data from the first few centuries AD to historical data that took place several millenia before that. Have you found Eden yet? Hell, there's sincere historical doubt that Jewish folk were ever enslaved by the Egyptians.

note: i edited the previous post

and i find that funny, concidering ancient egyptian texts describe teh plagues, and the leaving of the Isrealites, and about how Rameses(sp?) ordered the Hebrew slaves to change cartouches(Sp?) on temples and statues, from king Tutenkamens to Rameses so that the world would think Rameses made them not King Tut oh and the fact that they think they found where Moses split a rock and water gushed forth, and where God came to earth to Give moses the Ten commandments.

note: i edited the previous post

and i find that funny, concidering ancient egyptian texts describe teh plagues, and the leaving of the Isrealites, and about how Rameses(sp?) ordered the Hebrew slaves to change cartouches(Sp?) on temples and statues, from king Tutenkamens to Rameses so that the world would think Rameses made them not King Tut oh and the fact that they think they found where Moses split a rock and water gushed forth, and where God came to earth to Give moses the Ten commandments.

Source?

note: i edited the previous post

and i find that funny, concidering ancient egyptian texts describe teh plagues, and the leaving of the Isrealites, and about how Rameses(sp?) ordered the Hebrew slaves to change cartouches(Sp?) on temples and statues, from king Tutenkamens to Rameses so that the world would think Rameses made them not King Tut oh and the fact that they think they found where Moses split a rock and water gushed forth, and where God came to earth to Give moses the Ten commandments.

Yeah, we're gonna need a source, or even a passing knowledge of established history.

ah si you missunderstand me, or maybe i mispoke, i didnt mean as in how long people have been practicing the religion being undocumentable.. i meant in the events and dates spoke of in its religious texts being undocumentable. Granted i dont know much about the Hindu religion, but the most evidence, ive seen of it, besides those who practice it, is teh ornate temples that go with it that are a few thousand years old, but that fits almost any religion. But say take the bible, alot of the events depicted in the bible have been backed by physical evidence, for example, The story of paul on his way to Rome from Jerusalem, they were due to stop in Milan, however Fog had led to the ship getting lost. IT says the ship came to an island they didnt recognized, but saw an inlet in which there was a bay, and at 15 fathoms, they dropped 4 anchors and went ashore because they were lost.

A few years ago, people using the bible as a reference for that found 4 anchors at a depth of 15 fathoms which is roughly 90 feet i think, off the coast of milan, i think it was the bay of St Thomas, dating to be around 2000 years old, exactly where the bible said they would be


and im not stretching any time, because you have to actually have a grasp on how much time your strecthing to do so, this is just something thats being debated by many christian scholars at the moment



BUT! While were on the subject of Hinduism,...lets look at the site you gave me.

"A conglomerate of diverse beliefs and traditions, Hinduism has no known founder."


well gee...so if its just a mix of beliefs and traditions, how can you really know when it was started, i mean,... every other religion start with one specific event, or something along those lines. i mean you can pull anything with that,... "Hey man, i believe this," "yeah but Joe a few hundred years ago, said something like this.." "well hey lets put our things together and make or religion a few hundred years older"


sorry for the skepticism,

oh and another thing

"Hinduism is an extremely diverse religion. There are several schools of philosophies in the religion that overlap, although any universal belief is impossible to identify"

hey, dont most sects have to have certain universal truths to be concidered part of the same religion, could it just be that its not actually a religion, but more of a record of all the beliefs that people held in a certain area, just all slumped together? maybe?

What do you think Judaism? Claiming that judaism hasn't morphed over time is ignoring the facts. Worse, you have a religion like Christianity that went from an angry God to a loving God and you act like nothing ever changed. You have a very convenient and narrow-minded understanding of history.

Somehow I've managed to open up to history, science and logic and still remain a Christian. Your faith should withstand the same, no?

i meant in the events and dates spoke of in its religious texts being undocumentable.

That must be why the ancient city of Dwaraka (city of Krishna) spoken in the Mahabharatha was never found. Oh wait...


Granted i dont know much about the Hindu religion, but the most evidence, ive seen of it, besides those who practice it, is teh ornate temples that go with it that are a few thousand years old, but that fits almost any religion.

Given your first admission, you should not be making the second assertion.

God is the one true God, and all others have been made up as the world has progressed from the Babel. But the fact of the matter is that while we do not know whether the other gods exist or don't, we know that the biblical god is a fabrication and has been entirely made up.
And what the heck do you mean with Babel? Eridu?
Oh, and Jesus' name is Yeshua.

But the fact of the matter is that while we do not know whether the other gods exist or don't, we know that the biblical god is a fabrication and has been entirely made up.
And what the heck do you mean with Babel? Eridu?
Oh, and Jesus' name is Yeshua.

Nothing more fun than irrational assertions in the middle of an otherwise rational post. "We know He's a fabrication cuz I really, really want it to be true." I guess fundamentalists can be of any stripe, huh, UB?

Nothing more fun than irrational assertions in the middle of an otherwise rational post. "We know He's a fabrication cuz I really, really want it to be true." I guess fundamentalists can be of any stripe, huh, UB?

The Post-It Quagmire.

The Post-It Quagmire.

It's amusing because rationally even if you proved that every word in the Bible was complete and utter crap, you still could not prove the Biblical God is a fabrication. The problem is that God could come down and speak to an author and that author could write something completely and utterly wrong and that doesn't reflect what God said or did, it wouldn't be a fabrication. It would just be wrong. However, people who are hateful or frightened have a tendency to turn wrong into made-up. And we simply have no means to know logically or scientifically how made-up or wrong the Biblical God is. Any assertion to the contrary is by its very natural based on faith.

So here we are a year into UB's rants and no matter how many times anyone explains to him how irrational such an assertion is, he keeps making it and if you watch any debates he's in, he simply ignores any inconvenient facts or logic. For example, you'll not see a reply to this, or most of what GnI points out, or what Deus points out, or what any of the rational people on either side point out about how one logically analyzes these types of claims.

The Post-It Quagmire.

By the way, I'm correct that you're referencing the Post-It analogy that's often used to describe the idea of referencing the same thing in a bunch of different ways, am I not?

That the biblical concept of god is a fabrication is no irrational assertion, it's a historical fact. The biblical god is only an arbitrary conglomerate made out of various mesopotamian, levantine, and egyptian traditions that was assembled in the 5th and 4th century BCE (after the Jews' return from the "Babylonian Captivity"). Prior to that no-body had ever heard of the biblical god. This fabrication is somewhat like the stuff that L. Ron Hubbard would write...

That the biblical concept of god is a fabrication is no irrational assertion, it's a historical fact. The biblical god is only an arbitrary conglomerate made out of various mesopotamian, levantine, and egyptian traditions that was assembled in the 5th and 4th century BCE (after the Jews' return from the "Babylonian Captivity"). Prior to that no-body had ever heard of the biblical god. This fabrication is somewhat like the stuff that L. Ron Hubbard would write...

Ohhh yeah? Go on prove it then, huh huh!