Monotheism or Enotheism? What is more apt for Christian Religion?

And gods have babies which are also gods. This is a common feature of polytheistic religions. For example Apollo was the son of Zeus.Aside from Christian insistence that it is monotheistic what really is the difference between one god's divine offspring and another god's divine offspring?

I don't think anyone is advocating that all suprentural beings qualify as gods. Leprechauns for example are supernatural but not godly. I think the term "god" is generally and recognisably used in the following sort of way:

quote:

---

a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force

---

LinkApplying this definition is why Thor and Apollo and Zeus and Athena and Mars and Vishnu etc. etc. etc. are all recognisably godly.If this same definition were applied to Christian entities then Satan would arguably qualify as the god of evil and various saints and angels would qualify as lesser gods of various other aspects of reality. Well they do when they are talking about their own self-proclaimed monotheism. But they seem quite happy to accept the likes of Thor, Apollo etc. etc as qualifying as gods of polytheistic religions.In short the term "god" doesn't seem to get applied consistently as people want to special plead their own godly beliefs as somehow different to all those other godly beliefs.

If that's your way of saying that Christians are equivocating then I agree.They apply one meaning to the term "god" when talking about other religions and a different one when they are talking about their own beliefs.If a single definition were applied consistently then either Christians would have to conclude that the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Greeks etc. were atheists (because none of those godly concepts meet the Christian criteria for "god") or they would have to conclude that many Christians are polytheists because they believe in a range of godly entities.

Christians are theists. Those who believe in the existence of Thor or Apollo are theists too.Because the Christian God, Thor and Apollo are all recognisably godly concepts by any common conceptual criteria.By the same criteria other concepts in Christianity are also recognisably godly but Christians don't call them "gods".I don't see how you can blame me for attempting to apply terminology consistently. But they are all recognisably godly concepts aren't they?

What qualifies one as a theist?Whether poly or mono.Belief in the existence of god(s). Obviously. So how does one recognise any given concept as a god? I thought mono meant one god concept and poly meant many god concepts. In either case the concept(s) in question need to be recognisably godly don't they? That is a very weird way to look at things. If a god "a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe" how on Earth can you conclude that a superntural being who controls all/multiple aspects of the universe doesn't qualify? So then believers must be theistic-ish?

I really don't see why we have to adopt some sort of theistic relativism just because some Christians who believe in entities that would qualify as gods in a different context want to proclaim themselves to be mono-theists rather than poly-theists.The definition provided encompasses single creator gods who control all aspects of reality and gods who are part of pantheons where individual gods have control over different aspects.If one describes an entity and it meets those criteria why wouldn't we call it a god (other than to appease self-proclaimed mono-theists)? This is just relatavistic nonsense. How does belief have any bearing on whether something is actually godly or not? I am not a god. Regardless who may or may not believe that I am. Equally if there is a supernatural creator of the universe with supernatural control over aspects of nature then this being is a god regardless of what anyone believes (or even if there is anyone to believe) A Christian doesn't need to believe in the existence of Thor to recognise that conceptually Thor is a god. Obviously.

You are conflating the terminology used to convey what it is that people believe to actually exist with the terminology people use to convey conceptual meaning of things regardless of any belief about their existence.I don't need to believe in the existence of Thor to recognise that conceptually Thor is a god. A Christian doesn't need to believe in the existence of Thor to recognise that conceptually Thor is a god either.Whether Thor conceptually qualifies as a god or not has nothing to do with one's beliefs about which gods do or don't actually exist.Why would it?

I think we've been through this before: Message 201Firstly - I'm not saying all Christians are polytheistic. Having seen GDR's beliefs spelt out I wouldn't describe him as polytheistic for example. But I am saying that there seem to be quite a lot of Christians who describe themselves as monotheists whilst simultaneously believing in the existence of various entities that would be called 'gods' in any other context.

So you see Satan as the doer of God's dirty work? A sort of attack dog for the unsavoury but necessary things in life?

When you say "classic" do you mean old testament?Is the whole good Vs evil thing from Revelations?

You are advocating a rather bizarre approach to terminology whereby everyone can have their own personal definition of the term god and then decide whether or not they are a theist, an atheist, a polytheist or a monotheist based on applying their own unique definition.This leads to some rather ridiculous results. For example two people can believe in the existence of the exact same supernatural being but one of those people will be an atheist and the other a theist because they have different private definitions of the term god.

Then let's do that. You don't need anyone to believe in a concept for it to qualify as a god. It is perfectly possible to think up god concepts which nobody believes in at all. Obviously.The concept (whether anybody believes in it or not) under consideration either meets the definition provided or it doesn't. The Norse defined a concept called Thor. The concept called Thor as defined by the Norse meets the definition of god as commonly used.I have previously defined a concept called Wagwah. The concept called Wagwah as defined by me meets the definition of god as commonly used.The fact that the Norse believed in the existence of Thor and nobody believes in the existence of Wagwah is completely irrelevant to whether either of the above qualify as gods.

If you are simply saying that how one defines a concept dictates whether or not it meets the definition of a god or not then — Duh! — Of course. How could it possibly be otherwise.If you define Satan as some sort of metaphor for temptation then — No Satan isn’t a god.If you define Satan as a being completely under Yahweh’s control with no power of his own over any aspect of reality then — No Satan isn’t a god.If you define Satan as the supernatural personification of evil who holds dominion over hell and all that dwell there — Then very arguably Satan would be classified as a god in any other context and it’s simply a matter of self-proclaimed monotheistic Christian equivocation that demands that we not apply that label.But it’s about how one defines the concept in question rather than anything to do with belief in it.

Whether a concept qualifies as a god or not depends on how the concept is defined. It has nothing to do with belief in that concept. Belief in what does or does not exist is a separate question. You keep conflating the two things. We should certainly ask how the concept under consideration is defined by those who are putting it forward.Beyond that it's simply a matter of comparing it to the definition of god being applied.

Because I am talking metaphorically rather than referring to a supernatural being per se. It's like if I describe someone as an Adonis. Or describe someone as having the Midas touch. Or talk about opening Pandora's box. Etc. The metaphorical meaning has developed from the myth such that you can understand the meaning of the phrase without necessarily knowing anything about the myth. It depends. If in your metaphor you are still defining Thor as a supernatural being who causes thunder then - Yes Thor is still a god. If however (for example) the term "Thor" were to take on common meaning in the same sort of way that Adonis has such that it becomes metaphorically descriptive rather than a direct reference to any supernatural being then - No, not really. As things stand we generally use the term Thor to refer to the god and not as some euphamism for a particular weather pattern. At least so far as I am aware. It probably depends which version of Christ we are talking about. If it's one that is effectively just God's lackey - Then yes.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.