Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Christianity Polytheistic?
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 286 of 375 (568570)
07-06-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Straggler
07-06-2010 2:07 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
LOL. I addressed every point and you defelcted with a red herring once again. You select one sentence that was basically a joke making fun of your lack of understanding and avoid the meat of my post once again. Alas, I'll stop trying to school you of your errant ways since you will just avoid the issues and continually deflect and ignore the real logical fallacies of your argument.
Perhaps when you address the real issues I posed we can continue the dialogue when you have some remote grasp of the weakness of your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 2:07 PM Straggler has not replied

Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 287 of 375 (568571)
07-06-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by jar
07-06-2010 2:08 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
That was not my argument, was simple one of the many examples I used to show the logical fallacy of his argument. Perhaps if you actually bothered to read some of the posts I made instead of quote-mining from someone who deflects with red herrings and avoids 90% of the points you raise, you would get the whole picture instead of making yourself look dumb by joining the bandwagon with someone who doesnt know how to even post a proper position that is not full of multiple fallacy concepts. Perhaps you would care to address the many points I have made as to why his position is utter rubbish?
Edit:
By the way the trinity does not condone polytheism unless you have some twisted version of it. It simply explains the different forms God can take; true form, human form, and essence (spirit). Not hard to understand roughly equivalent to; gas, solid, liquid of a said element. You wouldnt call them a different element just due to fact the changed form, Kudos.
Edited by Practical Prodigy, : Expanded
Edited by Practical Prodigy, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 2:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 7:31 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 288 of 375 (568572)
07-06-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Practical Prodigy
07-06-2010 7:22 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
That was not my argument, was simple one of the many examples I used to show the logical fallacy of his argument.
It was a quote from your post. The examples you post are not your argument? How peculiar.
Perhaps if you actually bothered to read some of the post I made instead of quote-mining from someone who deflects with red herrings and avoids 90% of the points you raise, you would get the whole picture instead of making yourself look dumb by joining the bandwagon with someone who doesnt know how to even post a proper position that is not full of multiple fallacy concepts.
Perhaps you can point out where I quote mined anyone?
Perhaps you would care to address the many points I have made as to why his position is utter rubbish?
Perhaps you missed that I was addressing YOUR position not the position of someone else?
AbE:
By the way the trinity does not condone polytheism unless you have some twisted version of it. It simply explains the different forms God can take; true form, human form, and essence (spirit). Not hard to understand roughly equivalent to; gas, solid, liquid of a said element. You wouldnt call them a different element just due to fact the changed form, Kudos.
Ah, the heresy of Monarchianism.
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 7:22 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 8:19 PM jar has replied

Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 289 of 375 (568578)
07-06-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by jar
07-06-2010 7:31 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
Quote-mining is where you take a small part of a post out of context. Which either you did intentionally, or what I hope is the ther answr, simply requoted someone else who took it out of context.
If you wanted to address my post you could have addressed the heart of the issue not a poke of fun at someone with a head harder than granite. I have repeated myslef ad nauseum to explain why his postion is laughable and have yet to get a serious reply just one red herring after another, its quite comical.
Heresy you say? Please expand...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 7:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 8:38 PM Practical Prodigy has replied
 Message 293 by Theodoric, posted 07-06-2010 10:40 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 290 of 375 (568580)
07-06-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Practical Prodigy
07-06-2010 8:19 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
Quote-mining is where you take a small part of a post out of context. Which either you did intentionally, or what I hope is the ther answr, simply requoted someone else who took it out of context.
If you wanted to address my post you could have addressed the heart of the issue not a poke of fun at someone with a head harder than granite. I have repeated myslef ad nauseum to explain why his postion is laughable and have yet to get a serious reply just one red herring after another, its quite comical.
Heresy you say? Please expand...
Actually I quoted a full sentence from you and thanks to the design of this forum my post is linked back to the exact message so context is maintained.
Monarchianism is a Trinity based heresy, often seen in two forms, one where the Trinity is represented by three different modes, as in your example of solid, liquid, gas.
But don't worry, there are many more heresies for you to explore.
And I've never been able to find a reasonable or logical explanation of the Trinity that does not end up as Polytheistic except the model I outlined in Message 284.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 8:19 PM Practical Prodigy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-07-2010 12:20 AM jar has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 291 of 375 (568582)
07-06-2010 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Straggler
07-06-2010 1:17 PM


Re: "Ineffectual" Worship
Hi, Straggler.
At the risk of making this personal, I get the feeling that, if you’re interested enough in a subject to start a thread about it, you’ve already made up your mind about it, and just want to start a thread for the chance to tear into people who disagree with you.
Straggler writes:
Hypothetical or otherwise (the IPU) is recognisably a god concept in conceptual terms alone. Nobody need actually worship it for this to be the case.
And my criterion, for the third time now, is not that somebody actually needs to worship them: it’s that people within the religion in question believe that worshiping them will serve the intended practical or spiritual purpose.
If the people within the religion in question are hypothetical, then so be it.
-----
Straggler writes:
But if someone believed that worshiping this supernatural entity would actually have an effect they would not be able to legitimately call themselves an atheist would they? Even if they did not worship this being themselves.
Since IPUism is a hypothetical religion, it must have hypothetical believers. It certainly is presented as though it has hypothetical followers.
And, hypothetical believers still count toward conceptual definitions.
-----
Straggler writes:
The question is are many Christians implicitly acknowledging the effectiveness of worshipping supernatural entities other than Yahweh? Their evident fear of Satan worship alone would suggest that the answer to this is indisputably — Yes.
Your position was originally that Christianity is unwittingly polytheistic. Now, your position seems to be that many Christians are unwittingly polytheistic. It seems like you have very strongly altered your position, which, if true, would mean that you have tacitly admitted that your original argument was wrong.
Christianity is such a big tent that you could probably make any number of seemingly wild claims, and you’ll very likely find a subset of Christianity whose beliefs are reasonably approximated by your claims.
If that’s the point you want to be right about, then I’ll gladly let you have it. I never intended to be arguing that no Christians’ beliefs could be regarded as polytheistic anyway; though it seems that, in your eyes, this is exactly what I’ve been doing.
Certainly, there are many flavors of Christianity that believe in the efficacy and reality of such things as witchcraft and Satan worship, and these could be accurately regarded as polytheistic from the definition I've set forth; but there are equally as many that dismiss these ideas as superstition, and these cannot be accurately regarded as polytheistic.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 1:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:14 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 292 of 375 (568583)
07-06-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Straggler
07-06-2010 1:58 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
Don't play dum. You are the one that said they "really exist". You even went so far as to say that it would be a little "unconventional" to worship something that "really exists". So what are these godly pencils that you think "really exist"?
I said that pencils really exist, not that godly pencils really exist. As you must know.
As to which of us is "playing dumb" concerning the question of whether I, a rationalist and atheist, believe in "godly pencils", I shall leave that to the judgment of other readers.
Let's take the pencil theism example above. What you did is take worship as your criteria ...
No.
As I have explained to you, I used the term "pencil-worshipers" to refer to people who think that pencils are gods. I did not make worship of pencils the criterion for doing so.
A wooden pencil un-imbued with any additional conceptual attributes is simply a material wooden pencil. Not a god by anybody's reckoning. But a pencil theist will have imbued his pencil with conceptual attributes like (but not limited to) being supernatural, being consciousness and being able to willfully affect either this material reality or the supernatural reality in which that thing resides.
Of course.
You overlooked the conceptual component of what it necessarily means to actually believe that something actually is a "god". This oversight of conceptual meaning is what makes your statement look silly.
You overlooked what I actually said. This is what makes your misinterpretation of my statements look silly.
You have talked about tiers of beings. You have never stated anything other than that.
This is, of course, not true.
And just like every other word in the English language the word "god" has common conceptual meaning that is not dependent wholly on the individual beliefs of those using it.
Then tell us what it is.
In exactly the same way I identify anything else.
You mean, you check that it fulfills the criterion of some definition? Then please tell us what it is.
Why do you think the term "god" is different to any other with regard to being conceptually recognisable independently of individual belief?
I don't.
When Christians define god to maintain their monotheistic facade you cheer them on. When Christians define good in such a way as to be able to claim that a genocidal despot is incapable of evil you are first in line to give them a conceptual trouncing.
Why? What is the difference? Why is one concept defined wholly in terms of their religion and the other not?
There's a difference between arguing with someone's religion and arguing about what someone's religion is. If someone tells me that in Catholicism sodomy counts as a mortal sin, then I can say: "So much the worse for Catholicism". But I can't say "No it doesn't". Their game, their rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 1:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 2:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 293 of 375 (568586)
07-06-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Practical Prodigy
07-06-2010 8:19 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
Heresy you say? Please expand...
There is this thing called wikipedia.
Maonarchianism
Your idea of the trinity is definitely not mainstream christianity.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-06-2010 8:19 PM Practical Prodigy has not replied

Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 30
From: IN, USA
Joined: 06-30-2010


Message 294 of 375 (568594)
07-07-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by jar
07-06-2010 8:38 PM


Re: No, You're Not God
Well nowhere did you provide a supposedly non-heretical explaination. Also the fact you say it is heresy means very little, it is what was said by God that there is only one. Anything else is heresy and blasphemy. To say that God is one and has different contets that he applies his essence is not polytheistic. It is still the same spirit and essence, and Jesus/Holy Spirit are not deity in themselves just manifestations of God as is everything else in the Universe.
Edited by Practical Prodigy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 8:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 8:36 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 295 of 375 (568622)
07-07-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Practical Prodigy
07-07-2010 12:20 AM


on the heresy called Monarchianism
Well nowhere did you provide a supposedly non-heretical explaination. Also the fact you say it is heresy means very little, it is what was said by God that there is only one. Anything else is heresy and blasphemy. To say that God is one and has different contets that he applies his essence is not polytheistic. It is still the same spirit and essence, and Jesus/Holy Spirit are not deity in themselves just manifestations of God as is everything else in the Universe.
I explained that I have never found an explanation for the concept of the Trinity other than the model I presented, declaring the inconsistencies to be a Mystery.
But it seems that you really need to learn a little bit about the religion that is Christianity. To claim that there is only one and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not separate and unique entities has been deemed heresy, the specific heresy called Monarchianism.
Understand that is not my opinion, not what I say, but rather the declaration of Orthodoxy Christianity for almost 2000 years.
I'm not sure how old you are or whether you know much about Christianity, I can only point out the factual errors you make and try to help you learn a little about the religion you seem to have chosen. What you describe dates to around 200CE and was actually proposed as a counter to the concept of a Trinity so it is a heresy that has been around for quite awhile.
You probably should know that to say "Jesus/Holy Spirit are not deity in themselves" is also the sin of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, the one unforgivable sin that damns the utterer to hell forever according to the Bible so you might want to rethink that.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Practical Prodigy, posted 07-07-2010 12:20 AM Practical Prodigy has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 296 of 375 (568637)
07-07-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Straggler
07-05-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Conceptual Vs Theistic
Did the ancient greeks believe in a pantheon of gods? Or a pantheon of Gods?
Now you're getting there. The Greeks believed in the existence of (g)ods (supernatural beings with physical-law defying powers). They believed in multiple (G)od Concepts they named Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite. They were polytheistic. They did not believe in other (G)ods like Krishna, He Xaingu or Kaang.
Likewise - Conceptually the bible contains a limited pantheon of gods.
So says you. Christianity only has the one (G)od. All the others are functionaries without any (G)odhood attached. This defines christianity as monotheistic.
How is defining "god" to maintain ones claims to monotheism any different to defining "good" to maintain the idea that a genocidal despot is incapable of evil?
First, the point where we differ in this discussion is that defining (g)od means nothing to a specific theism only to the academic. Defining (G)od is the provence of specific creeds and in Christianity there is only the one.
In this case an errant academic can scream "Polytheist! Polytheist!" till the cows come home but it means nothing.
Second, defining "good" to encompass everything that some (G)od (YHWH) does would be an interesting semantical and philosophical discussion. The major problem being that a definition of "good" would be so subjective (relative morality) as to be worthless.
This is the same problem in shaping ones definition of (g)od(s) to produce a desired outcome. It can, for instance, be manipulated to make a monotheistic religion appear to be polytheistic and visa versa. Defining (G)od(s), however, is/are easy and straightforward and ultimately defines what is and is not monotheistic/polytheistic.
Edited by AZPaul3, : error, error and error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2010 5:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 2:49 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 297 of 375 (568658)
07-07-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Dr Adequate
07-06-2010 9:32 PM


Defining Gods
I shall leave others to review your remarks throughout this thread on the burning issue of pencil theism. They can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not you have conflated the need for conceptual criteria to be applied with simply labeling something as a god.
Straggler writes:
In exactly the same way I identify anything else
You mean, you check that it fulfills the criterion of some definition?
Is that really how you conceptualise? Like a walking dictionary? I seriously doubt it. We humans do not walk around applying dictionary style universal definitions to concepts in order to label them. In fact that is precisely what we do NOT do. That is exactly how human conceptualisation does NOT work. Instead we conceptualise by means of common qualities and association. This is why a brown furry animal that licks it’s balls and barks at postmen can be recognised by pretty much all of us here as almost certainly referring to a dog. Despite the fact that not all dogs are brown, have anything against postmen and, by virtue of sexual physiology alone, the majority won't even possess balls to lick.
No dictionary definition of dog would include such criteria. Yet in terms of recognition by association these criteria provide a far more realistic example of how our minds actually label concepts. Likewise we recognise god concepts by association. NOT by definition. Which is why the crop blighting ethereal eternal entity who must be appeased by means of human sacrifice I mentioned in my last post to you is recognisable by all of us as a god. Despite possessing some recognisably godly attributes that other gods will not and lacking some recognisably godly attributes that other gods will possess.
It is these qualities I am suggesting are religion-independent and able to make something recognisable as objectively godly. Or (as is the case with my own godly status) not godly. Whether something is objectively recognisable as a god or not has nothing to do with some silly be-all and-end-all universal definition.
Now if we were to ask a room full of people to draw, describe or depict in some way their idea of a god of evil what do you think they would come up with? What common qualities would this concept possess?
(When I was a teacher this was the sort of thing I could have actually tested out — alas I am not provided with these opportunities for social experimentation these days)
Straggler writes:
Why do you think the term "god" is different to any other with regard to being conceptually recognisable independently of individual belief?
I don't.
Then why do you keep relentlessly seeking dictionary style universal definitions as if this is the be-all-and-end-all of human conceptualisation? Our minds just do not work in the way you are assuming.
Straggler writes:
A wooden pencil un-imbued with any additional conceptual attributes is simply a material wooden pencil. Not a god by anybody's reckoning. But a pencil theist will have imbued his pencil with conceptual attributes like (but not limited to) being supernatural, being consciousness and being able to willfully affect either this material reality or the supernatural reality in which that thing resides.
Of course.
Then it would seem that you should agree with my analysis regarding conceptual association and objective qualities.
Straggler writes:
When Christians define god to maintain their monotheistic facade you cheer them on. When Christians define good in such a way as to be able to claim that a genocidal despot is incapable of evil you are first in line to give them a conceptual trouncing.
Why? What is the difference? Why is one concept defined wholly in terms of their religion and the other not?
There's a difference between arguing with someone's religion and arguing about what someone's religion is. If someone tells me that in Catholicism sodomy counts as a mortal sin, then I can say: "So much the worse for Catholicism". But I can't say "No it doesn't". Their game, their rules.
By the rules of Christianity for many Christians God is good because God is the sole source of all that is good
Yet when Christians tell you that they believe that their God is incapable of evil you have no qualms telling them just how wrong they are. How do you reconcile this with your claim above?
Yahweh the genocidal despot of the OT is "good" in exactly the same way that biblical Christians are "monotheistic". I.e. purely by virtue of internal Christian definition.
When you dispute that Yahweh of the OT is "good" are you unjustifiably imposing your own personal definition of "good" on Christianity? Or are you referring to a concept of "good" that is objectively recognisable and independent of any specific religion?
When I dispute that biblical Christians are "monotheists" am I unjustifiably imposing my own definition of "god" on Christianity? Or am I referring to a concept of "god" that is objectively recognisable and independent of any specific religion?
Why exactly do you reject the Christian defnition of "good" whilst inssting that we must accept the Christian definiion of "god"?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2010 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by nwr, posted 07-07-2010 2:30 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 307 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2010 12:29 PM Straggler has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 298 of 375 (568661)
07-07-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Straggler
07-07-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Defining Gods
Straggler writes:
Is that really how you conceptualise? Like a walking dictionary? I seriously doubt it. We humans do not walk around applying dictionary style universal definitions to concepts in order to label them. In fact that is precisely what we do NOT do. That is exactly how human conceptualisation does NOT work. Instead we conceptualise by means of common association.
Associationism has a long tradition in philosophy. However, God has an even longer tradition. I would hope that you are not basing your ideas just on tradition.
Having spent some time analyzing the question, I am inclined to enormous skepticism with respect to associationism. It looks to me as if Dr Adequate is closer with his "criterion" idea.
I agree with you that we are not carrying around dictionary style definitions. And I suspect that Dr Adequate would probably also agree. But criteria do not only come in dictionaries.
Visit an apple orchard. You might find a conveyor belt carrying the apples. A barrier deflects the larger apples to a chute on the side, while the smaller apples go under the barrier. That's applying a criterion of sorts, but not a dictionary criterion. It seems likely to me that we are using a variety of physical criteria in our perceptual recognition.
Edited by nwr, : Fix typo (How -> However)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 2:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:35 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 299 of 375 (568664)
07-07-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by AZPaul3
07-07-2010 11:36 AM


Re: Conceptual Vs Theistic
AZ writes:
There is no "outside" perspective from which to make a definition. God concepts are wholly and strictly specific-religion-dependent. You cannot have a "god concept" outside a specific religious view.
This was your founding statement. And yet as has been demonstrated we can quite easily describe and create concepts which are recognisable as gods but which have no association with any religion whatsoever
AZ writes:
The Greeks believed in the existence of (g)ods (supernatural beings with physical-law defying powers). They believed in multiple (G)od Concepts they named Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite. They were polytheistic. They did not believe in other (G)ods like Krishna, He Xaingu or Kaang.
Your capitalisation of the word God in reference to every single individual polytheistic god concept seems unwarranted. It certainly doesn't seem to be a universal convention. Can I ask where you are taking this from and why you think it so damning of my argument here?
Wiki on Apollo writes:
Apollo is the only Greek god to have the same name as his Roman counterpart. He is also the god of light, poetry, music, medicine, and prophecy Link
AZ writes:
Christianity only has the one (G)od. All the others are functionaries without any (G)odhood attached. This defines christianity as monotheistic.
Christianity does indeed define itself to be monotheistic. But (as I am arguing) in terms of also believing in beings which are recognisably godly in terms of objective qualities - Many Christians are conceptually polytheistic.
AZ writes:
In this case an errant academic can scream "Polytheist! Polytheist!" till the cows come home but it means nothing.
I agree that it is academic and inconsequential. As are many EvC discussions.
AZ writes:
Second, defining "good" to encompass everything that some (G)od (YHWH) does would be an interesting semantical and philosophical discussion. The major problem being that a definition of "good" would be so subjective (relative morality) as to be worthless.
So according to you neither of the terms "god" nor "good" have conceptual meaning that is anything other than wholly subjective and individual and which can be used in whatever way one needs them to be used to uphold ones personal belief system.
How many other words are similarly subjective?
It is a wonder we manage to communicate with each other given the complete lack of common meaning most words would have if we apply your arguments across the board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by AZPaul3, posted 07-07-2010 11:36 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by AZPaul3, posted 07-07-2010 4:12 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 300 of 375 (568667)
07-07-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Blue Jay
07-06-2010 9:23 PM


Re: "Ineffectual" Worship
Bluejay writes:
At the risk of making this personal
You are doing that a lot more than you used to.
Bluejay writes:
I get the feeling that, if you’re interested enough in a subject to start a thread about it, you’ve already made up your mind about it, and just want to start a thread for the chance to tear into people who disagree with you.
You know that whatever position I take here I take it vehemently and over fervently. It is nothing personal. I would debate my own grandmother in the same way if I came across her in a format such as this (admittedly this is unlikely)
In truth I started this thread because I was bored and I thought it would be contentious (no doubt CS would call this "trolling") with some of our biblical Christian contingent whom I always find good for a laugh. I also thought we might end up discussing more the historical roots of Christianity (as Mod tried to do) which relates well to the book I have been reading recently. I didn't expect such strong opposition from people like yourself and Dr. A. But frankly that has made it all the more fun and thought provoking in an unexpected way.
Bluejay writes:
And my criterion, for the third time now, is not that somebody actually needs to worship them: it’s that people within the religion in question believe that worshiping them will serve the intended practical or spiritual purpose.
To take the effectiveness of worship as ones be-all-and-end-all criteria for recognising gods or belief in gods is a good starting point but ultimately inadequate as a universal criteria. Those who believe in a deistic non-interfering god would consider worship to be just as pointless and ineffectual as an atheist would. Yet they still believe in concept that is conceptually recognisable as godly.
Bluejay writes:
Your position was originally that Christianity is unwittingly polytheistic. Now, your position seems to be that many Christians are unwittingly polytheistic.
I don't think it has changed. You seem to base this misconception on the thread's (admittedly provocative) title rather than the contents of the OP
From the OP:
quote:
Biblical Christianity is monotheistic. Right? One single god?
I know many Biblical Christians will insist that theirs is a monotheistic religion. I know they will insist that theirs is superior in some sense to those more "primitive" polytheistic religions that went before because of this. But they are just being inconsistent in their use of the term "god".
I tried to make it clear I was primarily talking about Biblical Christians (i.e. those who actually believe that the stories in the bible are real rather than metaphorical). You seem to have missed this intention.
Certainly, there are many flavors of Christianity that believe in the efficacy and reality of such things as witchcraft and Satan worship, and these could be accurately regarded as polytheistic from the definition I've set forth; but there are equally as many that dismiss these ideas as superstition, and these cannot be accurately regarded as polytheistic.
Then ultimately we agree on a great deal. Even if not my motives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Blue Jay, posted 07-06-2010 9:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024