Thanks! Now you've defined everyone as polytheist by even demoting the Deists! You're even more radical than I am!

This "only one is supreme argument" is not really relevant. In Japan, Amaterasu is the Supreme Goddess, but there are many under her. Suppose we changed all these godling's names to "saints" and "demons?" What would be the difference between that and Catholicism in terms of function? For example, in Catholic mythology, St. Nicaise of Rheims is the patron saint of smallpox, whom victims appeal to for aid. In Japan, Hoso-no-kami is the Japanese god of smallpox, whom victims must propitiate. Is there an important difference? It escapes me. Perhaps you have some clever definition that shows me how radically different smallpox victims in Japan and Europe are.

Your argument that we should pay attention only to definitions, and ignore everything else, and use only those definitions that are accepted by any particular theistic belief system, is absurd. I should pay no attention to what Xtians actually do, but only what they say?

Tell me, if went to Church every day, and prayed, and wore Jesus medallions, and followed all observances like Lent, etc, and loudly talked about how much I loved god and Jesus, and attacked secular humanism, would you accept my definition of myself as an atheist? Of course you would observe my behavior and say, "But Mike, you go to church, etc, etc?" Likewise, I look at Christian love of, admiration for, adoration of, reverence toward, celebration of, Satan, and I assume that he occupies some special place in their religious imagination. He is your trickster-hero, the one who defies god, who bargains with and outwits, and is outwitted by, humans. He is celebrated in poetry, literature, movies, art and song. He is the hero of a thousand faces. Is Satan THE Supreme Being? Not in the formal theology of your belief system. Is he treated like a god by Christian believers? You bet.

I am not so much concerned with what you say you are doing, it is what you people are actually doing, with your vast pantheon of demons, angels, devils and so forth, that is so fascinating. And it sure looks like polytheism to me.

Now, I note that throughout this conversation, on several threads, none of you has seriously confronted what this outpouring of artistic celebration of Satan actually means. Not one of you has tried to account for the presence of this vast literature of admiration and adoration (what in the name of all gods is Paradise Lost but a glorification of Satan?). None of you have faced this rough dualism in your belief system. You will note that I have turned a dumb slip-up into serious argument, while you guys run in circles telling me my definitions are all wrong, without actually confronting your own behavior.

Whether or not you label Satan a god, you clearly treat him like one. A_theistnotanAtheist actually tried to say something intelligent about this. But the rest of you simply refuse to look in the mirror.

I do not know if Muslims treat their version of the Devil with the same verve that Xtians reserve for Satan, so can't tell.

And yes, I do tend to see all religious systems as more or less polytheistic, but the label isn't very interesting, except to those who have a linear view of religious evolution, with god on top, and a huge emotional investment in the putative superiority of monotheism, and thus, their own need to be monotheistic.

Michael

I suspect this debate will come down to what the definition of "God" is.

If "God" just needs to exist in a spiritual realm and have supernatural powers, then Satan and angels would seem to qualify. (They just wouldn't be the most powerful type of Gods)

If "God" is defined as the most powerful supernatural being, then Satan and angels would be disqualified if they are not the most powerful supernatural beings.

Michael, congratulations, your perseverance has outlasted my desire to continue. One last thing. You've got a difficult task to prove that christian practices conclude worship of Satan. No, your examples will not be accepted for this discussion. You can submit all of the art, songs, literature, and movies you want to, but these would have to be shown to have an origin in the faith that I hold, to be legitimate. None are. For one, these do not show Satan as a God. Secondly, they are misconceptions regardless, made by a secular world. I.e. "Devil's Advocate", "Illuminata", and every other modern movie you can think of regarding Satan. I submit that it is the non-theists fascination with the being Satan that has caused such a great flurry of art regarding him. Alas, you are not a Christian, therefore could never understand the contempt, the disgust, and disdain that Christians hold for the being named Satan. He is unworthy of our attention, and we do not even take time out to think about him, except to pray for the strength to resist him. For we have power over him. We have victory over him. "Resist the devil and he will flee". He is the only being we are truly allowed to hate. He cannot receive forgiveness, therefore does not deserve it from us. Because he is out to destroy us, deceive you, thwart God. But he has no authority. He has no true power that originates outside of God's allowance, and He will be destroyed. You can watch movies like "Devil's Advocate" and graft its message into the Christian message if you want, but you would be a fool to do so. He does not bargain with God. He does not play wily Coyote with God. He is not even allowed to leave the earth, because God has caged him in here. If there is a literary fascination with Satan it is for this obvious reason, and it does not align with Christian doctrine. Indeed that being would rather have you believe he is a God, than accept my definition for him. He is powerful. He is the most powerful of all sub-supreme beings. But he is just that, sub-God/beneath God. Milton's stories have no bearing on Christian Faith. This is literature. You'd be hard pressed to show me how a non-biblical literary piece should be accepted as the doctrine that I personally hold (meaning Protestant doctrine). And even if you could you'd have to show that Milton treated Satan as a God. And OF COURSE he treated him as a God by your definition, and as of yet, YOU STILL have not given a reason that we SHOULD, in fact, accept it. -Shaun
TTFN...

[This message has been edited by Irishbrutha (edited April 06, 2001).]

He is not even allowed to leave the earth, because God has caged him in here.

Now exactly where is this cage? I have a vacation coming up and it would be neat to visit this spot on the way to the Grand Canyon.

It's in my back yard. Occasionally, I let him out so me and my friends can bitch slap the mofo. Then I let my dog lick him up and down, he likes smelling his arse, and then throw him back in again. (and you thought Christians didn't know how to have fun).

Sorry, cage was the wrong word. He's confined here by God's power.

Now I never thought that. Christians can have fun too.

But I'd still like to see where Satan is being held. It'd be good evidence for Christianity being true. I already got my trusty camera prepped and ready for the Grand Canyon so I could take some good pics.

I can't tell if your question is serious or not, bein' all couched in humorous jive and what have you. But I'll give the serious answer. He's not physical...alas...and he's confined to the WHOLE of earth. I'm afraid ya won't be gettin' Satan on yer evil scientific contraption this time now, willya...
-Shaun

Well you know us skeptic types. Alway lookin fer actual evidence that particular claims are true. But if ya ain't got none, then ya aint got none.

Layman wrote, near the beginning of page 1 of this thread:

In which earlier thread did rodahi assert this?


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 07, 2001).]

As for Satan being a "god," the Apostle Paul does refer to Satan as the "god of this world" (sometimes translated "god of this age") in 2 Corinthians 4:4. So, in a sense, Christianity (or at least the Bible) does regard Satan as a "god," though not an object of worship.

And, as has been pointed out, NO religion is purely monotheistic, with the possible exception of some forms of deism.

Yet, insofar as "monotheism" can be considered a meaningful religious category at all, I still consider Christianity to be more "monotheistic" than "polytheistic." Certainly, Christianity has the same monotheistic arrogance as Judaism and Islam. Also, Christianity has the same "problem of evil" as the other monotheistic religions.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 07, 2001).]