See some further comments in the thread A Challenge To Sephiroth - Christianity Polytheistic? in Open Religion Discussion.

Well Kate, I happen to be the one arguing the point on both threads, so I'm sure I've read the points your talking about. I know you were talking to Layman, but I just wanted to interject. Rodahi asserted that angels are supreme beings in comparison to humans. This was laughable, but he continued to assert it. Hence the need to bring out the definition of Supreme. -Shaun

What is truly "laughable" is the idea that fictional characters such as Yahweh, Satan, angels, and demons actually exist to be worshipped or scorned by superstitious people.

rodahi

No, Rodahi, it's actually quite reasonable. Much as your assertion that God definitely does not exist. I have certain inductive reasons for believing that, in fact, He does exist. You have certain inductive reasons for believing He does not exist. We have a different belief conclusion, ok? I could say "look at the fool, he's not being consistent to the actual logic of the situation. How can he say that God does without doubt not exist, especially when he adheres to such a strict view of knowledge (were he to be philosophically competent)"..Alas, I do not. I accept your belief as you should accept mine. It is not laughable, one of us, or both, is simply wrong about the data available. Yet it if that error were so glaringly obvious there would not be such a great cloud of witnesses on both sides of the issue. So please drop the "I'm an atheist, to be a supernaturalist is as contemptible as being a Greek pantheist" routine. It gains no respect in a logical discussion on my part. So have a nice day now ok?? I really do wish to have a respectful conversation. But if that desire is not reciprocated, what use?
-Shaun

To Michael. I was on my way to Denny's this morning, contemplating my "Granny's Skillet" when I think I may have come up with a means to clarify the question of definition. When we use the dictionary definition posted earlier of God, we are speaking merely of a descriptive definition of said word. God would be one who has such and such attributes. I.e. God is supernatural, God is Powerful, God supercedes humans, God is the Ultimate. But I think that if we look at the Prescriptive aspect of the definition we will find that even using the Polytheistic def. that Christianity only applies said definition to YHWH. For the Greek, all Gods were to be respected, worshiped, and feared. There may be other aspects, but all Greek Gods (I may be wrong, feel free to tell me) were worthy of worship, and all had constituencies of worship. Only one of these attributes applies to the angels of Christianity (you could count fear but that would be one who is young in their faith and does not realize that Christ has given us victory over Satan even in this life). So even if you count fear, that leaves us two. The key is worship. For this is the defining characteristic of Christianity. It alots worship to only the being that Created Life. All other beings are subject to that Creator and have no power outside of His will. No other being is accorded Worship but YHWH in Biblical Christianity (protestant that is). Angels rejected it in the O.T. and N.T. alike. They said get up for who am I to receive worship? I am another creation just like you. I am not self-existent. If you want to use the passages where the Angel of the Lord accepts worship, I will simply submit that this was a Christophany (call it a Theophany if you don't want to accept Christ's interaction with Creation prior to His incarnation). Hopefully I described this in an understandable fashion. Prescriptively christians do not apply the title of God to any other being than Yawheh. So in essence, if we accept the Greek def. in its entirety, then God is still the only true God in Christian faith.
-Shaun

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irishbrutha:
No, Rodahi, it's actually quite reasonable.

Belief in fictional characters is reasonable? How so?

Irish: Much as your assertion that God definitely does not exist. I have certain inductive reasons for believing that, in fact, He does exist.

Yes, that is precisely my point. There is no evidence for the existence of Yahweh, beyond ancient literature.

Irish: You have certain inductive reasons for believing He does not exist.

No, I do not think fictional characters exist because it is a very reasonable position to take. I have no belief in Superman, either.

Irish: We have a different belief conclusion, ok?

Yes, we have reached different conclusions. My conclusions are based on demonstrable evidence and yours are not.

Irish: I could say "look at the fool, he's not being consistent to the actual logic of the situation. How can he say that God does without doubt not exist, especially when he adheres to such a strict view of knowledge (were he to be philosophically competent)"

Your Bible says you should never call anyone a "fool."

I have never said that a deity cannot exist. I have said Yahweh is a fictional character. However, there is no demonstable evidence to suggest the existence of any supernatural being.

Irish: ..Alas, I do not. I accept your belief as you should accept mine.

No. I accept your RIGHT to believe what you wish. I do not have to accept your belief in a fictional character.

Irish: It is not laughable, one of us, or both, is simply wrong about the data available.

Precisely what does the "data" say about the existence of Yahweh?

Irish: Yet it if that error were so glaringly obvious there would not be such a great cloud of witnesses on both sides of the issue.

People do not believe in the supernatural because of evidence. They believe because it makes them feel good.

Irish: So please drop the "I'm an atheist, to be a supernaturalist is as contemptible as being a Greek pantheist" routine.

You have every right to believe what you wish. The same goes for those who believe in fairies.

Irish: It gains no respect in a logical discussion on my part.

Are you logical?

Irish: So have a nice day now ok??

Have a nice day, also.

Irish: I really do wish to have a respectful conversation. But if that desire is not reciprocated, what use?
-Shaun

A debate based on mutual respect would be nice, but you said something about one of my statements being "laughable," remember. So far, you have not shown how it is laughable.

rodahi

Rodahi, the laughability I thought was already shown to be apparent. I'll retract the word if it makes respectability easier for you. Sorry. I simply meant that the discussion had accepted the fact that Supreme cannot be applied to more than one being.

You were equating the word supreme with supernatural. It just doesn't fit. If there were only one supernatural being, and a supernatural being is greater than human beings, then yes he would be supreme. But if there are more than one, than the greatest of all of these beings is the supreme. Read the definition earlier.

As to how this relates to the supreme being's Divinity, it does not. YHWH is merely the greatest of all beings. My other points were worked out elsewhere. As to my being logical, I feel I (sarcastic tone) make the grade, as it were. I do not have conclusive evidence that would convince you of my God's existence, but my existential evidence is valid enough for me at the moment.

As to the idea that no one comes to belief in Christ through reason, I submit the example of C.S. Lewis. As to the idea that christians are illogical, I submit Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, Constantine, Plantiga, Habermas (disagree with the modern apologists or not, they adhere to logical principles), Craig, and Geisler. So you see my friend that to cry "illogical foul" on the christian's part does not necessarily line up with the history of scholarship. In light of this I re-submit my earlier statement that there would not be such a great cloud of witnesses on both sides of scholarship were the evidence so glaringly obvious.

However, I do agree with you that many do not believe in Christ based on evidence. I happen to be one of those, and as I've stated in other places, I am here to see if I CAN come to the logical conclusion that I already accept through belief. I will also say that in my minimal experience here I find that many accept the positive atheist outlook in response to an emotional distaste for the idea of the Christian God (or any God). I know there are many agnostics (the only true conclusion that is consistent with the logic of the situation that I can see as of yet), but there are a LOT of positive atheists. Positive atheism = belief. Your "evidence" may be greater than mine, but it is not knowledge. Thus to make a knowledge claim that God is fictional is as absurd as me making a knowledge claim that He exists......something to think about. No hard feelings, Rodahi, seriously. Forgive my earlier divisive remarks. -Shaun

Jews like to think the concept of monotheism is theirs. I like to think this is because in the bible god speaks into one ear at a time, in mono. Paradoxically, a god who spoke in stereo would be much more persuasive, and not just someone whispering outside your tent at night for instance.

Boro Nut

Getting back to the original topic - According to Meatcork "There are ninety derges in a right angel" and "There are frou right angels in a cricle.

Now you know.

Boro Nut

lol