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

I'm not really sure that we're dealing with facts that we can be cognisant of.If I tell you that I'm thinking of a god, then there's not really much for you to go on other than my say-so. If I'm thinking of a powerful supernatural being that is not a god, then how can you tell me that my concept actually is that of a god? How would you know? Its my concept... I figured poly still meant that you had one god concept, there were just a bunch of beings that fit within it. I don't think we can really be cognisant of what "godly" actually is. Its in the heart and mind of the believer. You must have missed my explanation:

quote:

---

If you have a sole God that controls everything, then you cannot have other gods controlling stuff too.

---

I wasn't saying the terms were mutually exclusive, its the belief in both that is.If you believe in God, as your source defines it, then there can't be any other gods.

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.

Because whether or not something is godly depends on what people believe about it.

So the fundamentalists' Satan is a god who controls stuff and fundamentalists are not monothesists.

satan is a parasite. he only "controls" them who allow it.As a created being, satan is incapable of himself creating anything apart from confusion.

Its possible; I don't know much about the fundamentalists' Satan.

Most Christians seem to say that God doesn't force Himself on you either - i.e. He only "controls" them who allow it. Again, the same could be said of God. He created the hardness of Pharoah's heart which caused a lot of confusion and/or other related troubles for the Israelites.

perhaps God used satan as a tool to harden the heart. God can use satan as a tool, but satan cant use God for anything.

But that is not what the story says, is it?

A bit like cholesterol?

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?

The classic view of Satan is as God's tester, the assayer. Satan does not oppose God, rather Satan only follows God's orders.

It wouldn't, you've misunderstood me. What matters it what the believer in Thor thinks about Thor.That's how we determine the properties to assign to Thor, and those properties determine whether or not he is considered a god. I don't think so, but if you're not willing to examine what the Christians actually believe about these beings.I could just as easily provide a diluted definition of "king", and then say that because your princes fit that definition, then Britain should be considered a polyarchy.I think it should matter if you guys actually see them as your king or not, and not whether or not I can define the word to include them.