Is Christianity Polytheistic?

Oh don't be such a fucking humourless gimp.Now stop avoiding the question and tell me in what conceptual sense I do not qualify as a god. We both agree that I am not a god so let's see if our reasons are the same or not.You must know why you consider me NOT to be a god. All I am asking you to do is clearly state what it is that I am lacking.Why is that so hard? Could it be that you fear we might hit upon some common conceptual criteria?

So as a self declared atheist you have no friggin conceptual idea of what it is you don't believe in?

See my post entitled "God-Spotting".

At the bottom of your post the forum software displays the words: "This message is a reply to: Message 329 by Dr Adequate".The forum software is lying.

I'd say Christianity is polytheistic because of the trinity-- the 3-in-1 god-- but not because of Satan and other supernatural beings (angels, succubi, unicorns, demons, etc.)I'd put all these guys into the same category of "supernatural beings"-- and I don't see evidence than any supernatural beings exist or have existed. I would guess that most atheists don't believe in any of these beings even though the only "requirement" for being an atheist is lacking a belief in any being recognized as a god. Myself, I don't believe consciousness can exist without a material brain, so I don't believe in ANY invisible beings.Gods tend to be supernatural "good guys" and devils tend to be supernatural "bad guys". I'd say that the believer gets to define what is and isn't a god according to whatever it is they believe. I also let the believer define his religious affiliation. If he thinks he's a Christian, I'm glad to consider him a Christian... even if some other Christian sect(s) disagree. Mormons and Catholics both consider themselves Christians, but the Jehovah Witnesses would disagree, for example. I don't believe in any of their gods and it's irrelevant to me whether they think they believe in the same god(s) or not. I also don't believe in their devils, demons, angels, spirits, etc. They are all indistinguishable from imaginary friends (and enemies) to me.I know Christians consider themselves monotheistic, but it's a semantic game from my perspective. Entities born of a god and a mortal --like Jesus-- are demigods... and the "holy spirit"-- well what is that supposed to be? God is just a spirit anyhow when he's not a burning bush or Jesus-- right? So how is this holy spirit different? If god is everywhere, then this holy spirit can't even be in a different place than god... so why is it part of a trinity instead of just "god"? I know, I know... it's all part of the "mystery" that humans can't hope to understand (I was raised Catholic), but I'm not buying it.And if Jesus is god, then how can god sacrifice himself to please himself to atone for the sins of his other children (?) which he would have known would be sinners? I think Christianity had a few gods melded together and then they tried to mesh it down to one Supergod that could beat all the other gods that people believed in at the time. Toss in a bit of mental illness, threats of hell, massive illiteracy, ignorance, faulty memories, and (best of all) the promise of salvation for believing that Jesus died for the sins of mankind --and presto-- Christianity. It's polytheist, but it's isn't, because the 3 are really 1. It's magic!I think anyone being honest would have to say the idea of the trinity is polytheistic. But religion is seldom about honesty in my experience.

That is correct. The term exists and has conceptual meaning. This is also correct. The conceptual meaning of the term is so subjective that a common universal understanding of its definition does not exist.So we are left with only subjectively derived definitions. Also, the application of any subjective definition is context sensitive. Both, dependent on context. Languages work that way. Both.I thought I covered this earlier. Obviously not well enough.With the term "good" you and I can (subjectively) agree on a meaning that excludes Yahweh. Others subjective definitions would include Yahweh. And still others would use the latter as the definitive definition of the former.With the (small-g) term "god" you have a subjective definition manipulated to assert that Christianity is in fact polytheistic. And, indeed, using your definition Christianity may appear so.Further I cannot object to your definition per se. I object to your application of this subjective definition to assert something the vast majority of the rest of the world would conclude is false.There appears to be a disconnect here, so pick one:1. Your definition is wrong.
2. The application of your definition is wrong.
3. Christianity (along with the rest of the world) is wrong.I think I know which one you would choose. And I think we will just have to disagree on your choice.

Still avoiding the question I see. Well here is your much cited "God Spotting" post in it's entirety. So now perhaps you can stop evading the issue and tell me exactly how you recognise concepts that are worthy of the noun "god" where there are no tiers and pinpoint exactly what conceptual criteria I am lacking such that I do not qualify.You never know we might actually agree on what these criteria are..........

Do you also consider the term "wall" to be utterly devoid of any common conceptual meaning?When is a wall not a wall but a partition? Or a fence? Or a boundary? Or a barrier? Is a glass wall a window? When does a wall become a blockade? Does the fact the term wall has conceptually blurry edges detract from the fact that all here have some common concept of what is meant by the term wall?It is impossible to universally define with absolute timeless universal precision and black and white boundaries many complex concepts. Concepts like game or god or good or life. Or wall. And there will always be someone who disagrees with even the most commonly accepted use of any term. But so what? This hardly justifies the position being taken by many here that no common conceptual meaning exists at all now does it? You seem to think that an inability to define a term to within an inch of it’s existence such that it has absolute timeless universal meaning with entirely unequivocal black and white boundaries means that said term must be utterly devoid of any common conceptual meaning at all.In fact I am quite happy to tell you what conceptual roles, attributes and criteria are commonly associated with gods such that we can recognise such concepts. And I have referenced some of these in messages 282 and 297.But given that you have spent this whole thread ducking and diving as to what conceptual criteria I am lacking such that we can both agree that I am NOT a god (see Message 331) I shall wait to get a straight answer from you on that question before doing so.I won't hold my breath however.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Bob believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who demands respect and adulation in order to appease his monumental wrath.Can Bob legitimately call himself an atheist? So do you accept there is a religion-independent conceptual meaning to the term "god" or not? So you continually assert. But if what you say is true then when (for example) CS uses the term "god" in the quotes below these statements are, according to you, conceptual gibberish devoid of any common comprehensible meaning. Whatever disagreements I may have had with CS over the years I don't think his position on theistic cultures is conceptual gibberish. I know what he means. As, I have little doubt, do you. Because his generic use of the term "god" in these quotes has conceptual meaning that we are all familiar with.So how do you reconcile that with your assertion that "we are left with only subjectively derived definitions"? Or your asserted premise that the term "god" is utterly devoid of any common conceptual meaning is wrong?

Unless he has a screw loose Bob most probably would not call himself atheist. Though, if in discussion, the term theist were, for some absurd reason, agreed to be defined as only a belief in Achaman, then Bob would probably accept the label atheist.Depends on context.Carol believes in a divine spirit that permeates the universe and binds all life and all things in a shared experience in common existence.Is Carol atheist? Need to separate the contexts.In a general discussion of "god/s" (not any specific capital-G "God") in the midsts of a religious community there is a fairly good probability of a shared conception that is religion independent.But in a mixed or unknown community where it would be prudent to ask "what do you mean by god?" (note: not asking which God) then obviously no.Depends on context. Your cited CS "Message 11" is in error.I have yet to see Catholic Scientist devolve into gibberish so please do not ascribe any of my musings to denote such an absurdity.When CS uses the term I have no doubt he has in mind what he believes to be a good generic set of religion-independent attributes. But what are they? Bob's, Carol's, both, neither?It is a subjectively defined concept that may or may not be shared by the rest of us.Since, in this context, we know CS from his past posts, we can reasonably assume his use of the generic small-g "god" term is more in line with Bob's concepts then Carol's or still others that have been known to exist.Also, CS said

quote:

---

You're conflating two different things that are being labeled as "god". One is the god of another group, as in the concept of them having a god, and the other is the god that one believes actually exists as a God.

---

quote:

---

Believing in spiritual beings that are not called gods does not make them polytheistic even though other religons might consider those spiritual beings as gods.

---

quote:

---

You calling all spirtual beings as gods and not distinguishing between a God and other spiritual beings like the Christians and everyone else do.

---

et al.You ignore these restrictions on his subjective definition since they do not further your goal. You are allowed to do that since the definition is subjective after all. Agreed. Again from his use of the term in specific context and with familiarity with CS's past posts together with an assumed acculturation we seem to have in common within this EvC community, we can determine a good portion and even share his subjective definition.It is subjective nonetheless and not required to be shared by all.Even this "sharing" is loose since in our minds we might assume some attributes that CS never voiced. And as we have seen, we can ignore certain limits CS puts on his definition if it suits our purposes. A little hyperbole here, Straggler?I assert the meaning is subjective and sensitive to context, not that it is "utterly devoid" of any meaning within context. And, yes, I assert that definitions are so subjective as to be near useless outside a specific context.For your purposes of subjectively defining and applying "god" to assert that Christianity is patently polytheistic, I'm afraid this fourth option is not open to you.Try again:1. Your definition is wrong.
2. The application of your definition is wrong.
3. Christianity (along with the rest of the world) is wrong.

Not of any common conceptual meaning. But it's vague. If you and I really disagreed about whether something was a "wall", could you really insist that you were objectively right?And yet when we disagree on what is and isn't a god you insist that you're right --- despite not being able to spell out your criterion. Which leaves the six billion people who aren't you with no better criterion for distinguishing gods than "because Straggler says so".Try not to get hit by a bus, we need you. No. But I think that where there is disagreement --- where we do not, in fact, have a common concept, then it is futile and fatuous to appeal to "the common conceptual meaning". No. I have given you criteria. Apparently you don't like them, but I have in no way avoided supplying them.

I am sure that I would love them. If I knew what they were. In the name of clarity could you list them rather than make oblique references to where you claim to have already supplied these criteria? And would you say the same about "god"? Or are you still asserting that this is utterly devoid of any common conceptual meaning at all? If the concept of a wall is vague and as open to subjectivity as you suggest then can you give me some examples of nouns that you consider to be conceptually solid? I am starting to wonder how you think we manage to communicate with each other at all given that, according to you, we all seem to be largely confined our own private meaning of every single term discussed so far. No. I am suggesting that gods don't necessarily need to be called gods to be considered gods. I am advocating that concepts rather than nomenclature should hold sway.If you want to explain why, purely in terms of conceptual criteria, the various supernatural entities believed in by Christians do not qualify as gods - Then we can have that discussion. But all you have done so far in this thread is relentlessly assert that we have to accept Christian nomenclature because they say so. If you relentlessly insist on adhering to the definition asserted by a specific religion or believer how can we tell whether there is any common conceptual meaning that applies or not? If there is a common conceptual meaning to the term "god" do you now agree that we can legitimately apply this to a specific religion? Or are you still insisting that we must adhere to Christian definitions regardless of whether there is a more objective meaning or not?This is very unclear so clarification would be appreciated. Let us investigate the limits of our disagreement on this further. We both agree that I am not a god and you are going to hopefully clearly spell out what conceptual criteria I lack in your next post. So let's consider an example or two at the other end of the spectrum and see if we can conceptually agree on that too. Then maybe we can work out where those conceptual blurry edges actually lie. Question 1
Bob believes in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who demands respect and adulation in order to appease his monumental wrath. Bob refuses to label this being as a god and instead refers to said entity as a glod.Can Bob legitimately call himself an atheist? Question 2
If (for the sake of argument) it turned out that I am in fact an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent universe creating god after all would it matter that neither you nor anyone else believed this? Or would I be a god regardless of what anyone believed about me? How is this compatible with your position here that the mantle of god can only ever be applied as the result of belief?(NOTE - To qualify as a Straggler-theist you would obviously have to believe both that I exist and that I am imbued with the aforementioned recognisably godly qualities) I'm touched. And in return I will pray to glod that you don't choke to death on your own wit.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But Bob does call himself an atheist. And this has nothing to do with Achaman. So are you unjustly imposing your own definition of god on poor Bob? Or are you applying common conceptual criteria and disagreeing with Bob's claims to be an atheist on this basis? You (apparently) have 3 choices.1. Your definition is wrong.
2. The application of your definition is wrong.
3. Bob is wrong. If the spirit in question is also believed to be able to exert it's conscious will in order exert supernatural power or influence over any aspect of nature or any immaterial realm that might also be believed to exist then - as with Bob - Carol would be unjustified in calling herself an atheist. No? We (apparently) have 3 choices.1. The definition above is wrong.
2. The application of the definition above is wrong.
3. Carol is wrong. And by the "shared conception that is religion independent" here at EvC does Christianity qualify as polytheistic? Ones that include Satan as a god and that seem very close indeed to that which I am suggesting forms the basis for common conceptual criteria.What are your godly criteria? Maybe we will all have more in common with regard to this than you are asserting. This is why I asked on what basis people did not consider me to qualify as a god. But actually getting most of you to state what criteria you applied in order to disclaim my asserted godliness was like trying to get blood out of a stone. Why so reticent? Do you fear that by stating the conceptual criteria by which you deem something worthy of the term god you might cite some criteria that we could all commonly identify as being associated with godliness? Thus refuting your position that no common conceptual meaning can be found? You can assert whatever you like. But anthropologists seem to quite competently identify cultures as theistic without everyone insisting that the god in question doesn't meet their personal subjective criteria.What criteria are being applied to recognise god concepts in these instances?

Or, did I invent an absurd scenario by which to illustrate the subjective nature of the question? So if Carol's divine spirit just permeates the Universe and binds all life and all things in a shared experience in common existence, but does not manifest as some kind of personified Sky Daddy or ruler over some earthly or supernatural realm then Carol is not a theist? There may be some overlap in concept with most here at EvC but this is one of those "Mixed/Unknown" communities I spoke of in my prior message. Too many unknowns thus too much subjectivity to say we all have the same common shared conception. Can your own small-g god concept envelope Carol's God without the sky daddy aspect? Does not appear so.Carol is free to define her God in her own way and is therefore allowed to define the small-g god definition to include her theology.Context is key.By your definition Carol is an atheist. But not by her own.This small-g god definition is subjective, open to manipulation for any specific purpose.Christianity is, by definition and by practice, monotheistic. So say its practitioners and so says the rest of the world.
If you care to manipulate the definition of god in such a way as to make Christianity appear polytheistic then so be it. The rest of the world will disagree with either the definition or its application.Edited by AZPaul3, : Changed the message then changed my mind. No edit.

Would you please tell me what the yellow rubbery fuck you find "oblique" about the following posts? And you call that "oblique"?I can think of only one single more direct way of driving my point into your skull, and that would involve cranial surgery.Once more, I would suggest that if you want to know how I am identifying gods, you should read post #198, the one entitled "God-Spotting". Y'know, the post you never replied to when I first posted it? The post that I direct you to every single time you ask me for my criteria for identifying gods? The post that you haven't managed to think up any reply to in the five weeks during which I've kept telling you to read it? The post you keep pretending that I haven't made? The post you are now pretending that I won't tell you about except "obliquely"? That post? Ring any bells?When you are prepared to acknowledge that I have set out my criteria very plainly and am now for at least the sixth time directing you to them in the least "oblique" way possible, get back to me. Until then I see little point in discussing anything at all with someone whose favored debating tactic is to pretend that my posts don't exist.