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

But I am incredibly willing to do this.What I am not willing to do is give a free pass to believers who define a range of entities that qualify as gods by the definition we are applying whilst simultaneously declaring themselves to be monotheists.I will instead point out the inconsistency.

You've spent all your time trying to define gods into including the Christian concepts rather than actually looking at the concepts to see if they should be called gods. But the definition of "god" has not remained consistent. Its evolved from polytheism, through henotheism, and into monotheism.There's no reason to deny that.

Then we are back to where you are denying we were before.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 are applying different definitions of the term god.

No, not at all.Are you denying that the definition and concept of what a "god" is has been changing over the centuries?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo

So the only reason that many Christians qualify as 'monotheists' is because the term "god" has been redefined to make it so. Equivocated themselves into monotheism where their beliefs would have been deemed polytheistic if we were to apply terminology consistently.You are making my point for me!!!! In terms of recognising gods as supernatural beings who personify or control some aspect of the universe I think the usage is very consistent (a creator god that controls all aspects is just a particular case of the wider definition).This is why we can all agree that Apollo and Thor are god concepts. This is why if we were to discover an ancient culture which worshiped supernatural entities that represented evil, love etc. etc. we would have no problem applying the term "gods" to those entities.It's only when self-proclaimed monotheists consider their monotheism as unquestionable regardless of which entities they believe in that we have to start equivocating the term.

I notice that you're still refusing to actually consider peoples' concepts and are instead focusing on defining them into something they're not. Well no, its not equivocation. Not all changes to the definitions of words are equivocation. Peoples' concepts of gods have been evolving for centuries. There's no reason to hold one group to another group's concept or definition. You can apply terms to entities all you want, but whether or not you're accurately descrbing the culture's concept of that entity has nothing to do with how you apply terms to it.Its awefully smug and condescending to look at, say, the Native American ancetral spirit worship and just go: "Hurr, those guys must be polytheists with all those gods they have".You're not accomplishing anything other than misunderstanding them. Although, I guess you do get to feel superior about yourself. Well I don't think so. These aren't even concrete concepts we're attemting to describe. There's no consistency at all. Even that isn't correct. Entire cultures have been evolving around new concepts and understandings of what gods are and what God is. That's why we have terms like polytheism, henotheism, and monotheism. Its not about a culture redefining the word so as to exclude themselves from some grouping, its about descriptions of what the culture's concepts have become. Why use an old outdated concept to describe the newly evolved one? What is to be gained by deeming a culture something it has evolved away from?

We can seek to understand the internal distinctions by which the followers of individual religions convince themselves of the special nature of the object of their worship without adopting those internal distinctions and engaging in the sort of ridiculous theistic relatavism you are putting forward here.Christianity very arguably has a panoply of gods: God, Gabriel, Michael, Satan, etc. Just like many ancient religions. How Christians choose to characterize their views has nothing to do with the reality of those views. That Christians believe in a panoply of supernatural beings that they give various designations to like God and Satan, angels and devils, is no different than the pagan belief in many gods, such as the ancient Greek belief in Zeus, Hera, Ares, Apollo, Aphrodite and all the rest. No. People can define whatever entities they like and I will consider those concepts as defined by them when I compare those concepts to the definition of the term "god". If every group uses it's own definition then we are (yet again) back to that which you keep denying.You are advocating a rather bizarre approach to terminology whereby every group can have their own definition of the term god and then decide whether or not they are theists, atheists, polytheists or monotheists based on applying their own definition.This leads to some rather ridiculous results. For example two groups can believe in the existence of the exact same supernatural being but one of those groups will be a group of atheists and the other a group of theists because they are applying different definitions of the term god. Is Thor a god? Is Satan a god?Which definition are you applying?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are trying to say there's some kind of theistic absolutism? That's just not true. Unfortunately, you'd have to be willing to examine those beliefs to determine that. But you won't. Instead, you'll focus on semantic arguments. Pitty. I though I was denying this:

quote:

---

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.

---

Anyways, my denial remains the same. The groups don't define themselves. Those labels are applied to the groups.It isn't through Cristian insistence that they are defined as monotheists. It is an examination of their views, again something that you've been unwilling to do, that leads people to describe them as monotheists. Its not through the manipulation of the definition of the term "god", the only thing you seem willing to do, that leads to the assignment of the theistic descriptions to the groups. That's just not how its done. Well that's religion for you. It can get pretty ridiculous.And the descriptive terms that are applied to them are relative rather than absolute. That's not equivocation, though, its just that we're not talking about concrete things.It doesn't matter if you want to call Michael a god or not, if Christians don't think he's a god then there's no reason to say that he's one of their gods.

Consider Dave.Dave believes in the existence of a supernatural being who holds dominion over a fiery supernatural realm where some unfortunate humans end up for all eternity in the afterlife. Dave also believes that erupting volcanoes are expressions of this supernatural being's displeasure.But Dave says he is an atheist. Because Dave applies the following definition to the term "god" (see below) whilst not holding any belief in any being that meets that definition.god: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, the supreme being.Is Dave justified in describing himself as an atheist?Or is Dave playing silly buggers with terminology?

No, a hypothetical individual's fake beliefs don't have anything to do with how religions are categorized.

...and comparing those attributes to what we define gods as.The definition comes before the concept. Yes, and how would you determine that? Isn't it by comparing it to how gods are defined as? But how many different definitions for kings or god are there?Gods have a specific definition, not just anything is considered a "god". Who cares what the subjects think. If the person in question fits the definition of king then they are a king. So at some point... Re-read that to yourself, because to me it's the same things except for one has somehow convinced many and the other is new in it's inception. You'd be eventually examining the same thing: the qualities some particular culture or person made up. I think all of those religions at one point started with one author. "Created through generations" and "Emerged through generations" seems like the same thing. But only because I'd be comparing it to what the actual definition of god is. Maybe, but not in all cases. It could be that their concept of god is at odds with what is defined as an actual god.- Oni

Well I've lost track of this discussion and don't care to re-read it all right now.Polytheism is a description of a particular type of religion. Religions have evolved through various other stages and (some) into monotheism, which itself is another description of a particular type of religion.Playing with the definitions of words to make it look like a monotheistic religion is a polytheistic one is just that, playing with definitions. You're going outside of the scope of the description and calling something what it isn't.That's just not how these things are categorized.