Is Christianity Polytheistic?

So you believe.Both with regard to the definition of god such that you can proclaim yourself to be a monotheist and with regard to your definition of good such that Jehovah is incapable of evil.

No. In your example, Dave thinks that Zeus is different from the rest of the Greek pantheon --- indeed, so different that they should not be placed in the same class by referring to them by the same noun. OK, you'd "be a God" in that sophistical sense; just as if you changed your name to Teapot you'd be a Teapot in the same sense that Paul McCartney is a Paul. But someone who admitted as much would not, of course, think that you were a teapot in the sense of a vessel in which one could brew tea. Or,apparently, mine.I don't see, and you have not explained, why your internal non-definition should trump that. And yet implied that I treated them differently. And you believe that you believe in no gods, but any creationist who's passed his beginner's grade in being an asshole can tell you otherwise. According to his private definition or non-definition of what a god is. No.Would you like to demonstrate that such a "common conceptual meaning" exists? We can all agree that you're not a god simply and solely because no-one round here does in fact think that you are a god.If, on the other hand, you were an old-time Incan Emperor, then you would be a god of the Incas just as surely as Apollo was a god of the Greeks.Or would you say that because you wouldn't fit your "common conceptual meaning" of a god, the Incas would just believe that they believed that you were a god, without actually believing that you were a god?

Precisely. OK I am perfectly aware that by the self styled definition of Christianity biblical Christians believe in only one God. This is not in dispute and never has been. By their own internal definitions they are monotheists. But by any religion-independent analysis they are polytheists. That is my point here. Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians?Why must we un-questioningly adhere to their rules on this?

You don't have to adhere to their rules. You are free to believe most anything you want, even that their rules are wrong.What is stupid is to suggest that a religion-independent use of the term 'god' is appropriate to a discussion of a particular religion.

---

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

Well exactly. Because "teapot" has conceptual meaning that is associated with tea brewing. So now tell me in what sense am I NOT a God. Be specific and stop avoiding the question. See above. We all agree that I most certainly definitely am not a god (or a tea pot) in any conceptual sense. How the hell is that possible unless we have a common conceptual sense of what does and does not constitute a "god". Because I fulfill none of the roles or possess any of the attributes, qualities or criteria commonly associated with being a god as opposed to a just human being. Incas or otherwise nobody is going to genuinely believe I am a god in any conceptual sense without imbuing me with some additional supernatural abilities or properties. Are they?

If we look at theism as a whole, objectively and not in terms of the definitions of any one particular religion, biblical Christians could legitimately be classed as polytheists who believe themselves to be monotheists.

I had thought that I had made that clear. In the same sense that you would not be a teapot. We cannot all agree that Satan most certainly definitely is not a god (or a tea pot) in any conceptual sense. How the hell is that possible unless we do not have a common conceptual sense of what does and does not constitute a "god". And Zeus fulfills none of the roles or possesses any of the attributes, qualities or criteria commonly associated with being a god as opposed to a fairy story. I shouldn't think so, no. Why do you ask?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You could say that YOU class them as such, but remember that is simply YOUR belief, and certainly no more valid then their position.

---

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

If we were classifying religions based purely on the concepts in which they believe rather than their own internal definitions how could biblical Christians fail to be polytheists?

I am not a god because you cannot brew tea in me? The main reason we are not agreeing that Satan constitutes a god of evil is because you keep relentlessly asserting that we must apply the Christian definition of "god" to Satan. Why must we? A "fairy story" involving beings that are conceptually recognisable as gods. Because they would presumably be the same abilities and properties that you are so reluctant to state that your own lack of belief in my godliness is based upon.So what sort of abilities and properties are we talking about here? Be specific and stop avoiding the question.

You are free of course to make any classification you want. Just understand that it has no more validity than their position that they are Monotheist.The problem is you are trying to apply your definitions of what a word means when it is not the definition they use.

---

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

My definition?Are you saying that the term "god" is utterly devoid of any common conceptual meaning?

With your outstanding talent for incomprehension, have you ever thought of becoming a creationist? They could use people like you. No. As a matter of fact, I don't know what particular abilities or properties the Incas attributed to their emperors --- apart from being gods, of course. If you're interested you can look it up just as well as I can.

Given our inability to agree on who is and isn't a god, and your inability even to say what you mean by the term ... it does kinda look that way, doesn't it?

Very good.

---

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