That's an interesting question actually. I am not an expert on Hinduism, and have always assumed that it was polytheistic. The recent post from hinduwoman, called For those interested in Hindu notion of God suggests that they have elements of both.

Since it has many types of gods, and each person is free to worship them (as opposed to worshipping only Brahman), the classic definition would require us to call it polytheistic. At the same time, since everything (including all of us, and the gods as well appear to be a part of Braham, perhaps it is better to think of their religion as Braham worshipping himself. To the Hindu, there appears to only be The One, and no real others.

For those more interested in this question, I invite them to read hinduwoman's thread, and pose their questions there (or to email her).

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 04, 2001).]

Soon, but not on this topic. How can anyone attack or defend what is only opinion anyway?
You can have your specially plead that the three gods are one, and call it monotheism, I'll call it polytheism, and we'll both be happy.

Perhaps I'll console myself by renting Devil's Advocate tonight, about a godlike being whom Christians don't revere.

Michael

Once again, I have admitted the theologically problematic nature of the Trinity. What I was responding to was your assertion that belief in angels and/or satan is sufficient to render a religion polytheistic. That is where you are being absurd.

Again, the implciation is clear and unavoidable (although your valiant attempts are noted). Accoring to your definition, there really aren't any monotheistic religions. Since Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in angels, they are polytheistic.

So, I ask again. Is there any such thing as a monotheistic religion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nothing is as "silly" as the belief in the alleged virgin birth of Jesus or his coming back to life after his execution. These beliefs are silly in all seasons.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Hmm... and have you answered my question yet?

Your questions are silly, Nomad.

Nomad: You're going to make me doubt that you really ever were a Christian rodahi.

And...

Nomad: On the other hand, perhaps you could inform penatis that he should come back bail you out, and then he can tell us which Christian church teaches that Satan and the angels are supreme beings.

And you can inform Polycarp that he should come bail you out of your continued silliness.

Nomad: I really am interested in finding out about this curious (and previously unknown) doctrine.

Do some serious reading. Oh, and stop being so silly.

Nomad: Now, stop trying to change the subject rodahi. Fess up. Who told you that Christians think of Satan and the angels as supreme beings please.

Now, fess up, Nomad. Did Polycarp give you these silly notions? Or, did you come up with them all by yourself? Let me help you, Nomad, stop being so silly.

Sheesh!

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 04, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
"If Christians believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then they believe in more than one god."

Layman: No, because Christians are very adamant that that God is One.

Christians are adamant about many things that don't make any sense. Three is never one.

"If Christians believe in angels and Satan, then they believe in supernatural entities other than Yahweh."

Layman: Yes, so what?

See below.

"If Christians believe that angels and Satan have powers that exceed those of human beings, then Christians believe that angels and Satan are supreme beings compared to human beings."

Layman: LOL!

Okay, now I am confused.

Obviously.

Layman: Are you asserting this? Suggesting this? Or is this somehow just a question?

This is something you are apparently not familiar with. It is an "If, then" statement.

Layman: All I can say to your overwhelming logic is that we have very different definitions of "supreme."

Obviously, you and I don't use the same definition of "logic" or "supreme." You are a Christian; I am not.

rodahi

Since you of course know that Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe that angels have more power than human, it would seem that you are, in fact,asserting that Christians believe that Satan AND angels are supreme beings.

And again, I'll answer, as I did before: Deism is one. There are probably others, perhaps some forms of Judiasm.

Thanks for your acknowledgement. So I'll give you one back: it was dumb of me to write "worship" back there. Christians are fixated, obsessed and fascinated by Satan, who is by far their most interesting and amazing invention. But "worship" was the wrong word. And it has been fun defending it.

However, it doesn't change a thing about the Devil's powers and role, or Xtianity's polytheistic tendencies.

Why this desperate need to be monotheistic? Does it change your religion, or your love for god, or his for you, if Xtianity is polytheistic?

Michael

Michael, how do you expect a Christian to react when you insist that he, in fact, worships Satan? Or even angels.

Your label doesn't change the centrality of my religion. But it has the potential to distort when you insist that we worship satan, angels, and saints. To be frank, the Catholic endorsement of praying to Mary, Saints, and Angels bothers me. It goes to far and, I believe, it has incorporated many pagan elements.

And I also take it as symptomatic of the contempt that skeptics have for any religious belief. To them, it is all equally ridiculous and we are all equally unreasonable.

And finally, it was just plain annoying. Is this really the battle you want to fight? Is this what being a skeptic is all about? Just picking fights and using labels to annoy and distract when you realy just think its a matter of semantics?

Toto

It's not contempt - it's just an observation. Belief in one imaginary friend is as unreasonable and ridiculous as belief in a different imaginary friend.

What's wrong with that?

LOL!

Sure, no contempt here.