quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is something you are apparently not familiar with. It is an "If, then" statement.[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Layman: 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.

You seem to have conceded that worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is polytheistic. Right?

Also, you seem to be saying that some beings can be superior to humans but not supreme in their power. And you believe you are logical?

rodahi

"You seem to have conceded that worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is polytheistic. Right?"

No, I said it was problematic and that I could understand why some Jews and many Muslims claim it is polytheistic. Most religious scholars, however, such as Huston Smith, would classify Christianity as monotheistic.

"Also, you seem to be saying that some beings can be superior to humans but not supreme in their power."

I am saying that angels are not "supreme beings." I am also saying that satan is not a "supreme being." God is the Supreme Being. And angels and satan are limited creatures who are subordinate to him.

"And you believe you are logical?"

Mostly. Why? What would be illogical would be to first claim that you weren't asserting that angels and satan were "supreme beings," then, in fact, proceed to defend that tortured classification in spite of all custom and usage. Moreover, it would be a fallacy to insist that a creature that is subordinate to another, is a "supreme being."

So you are responding here because...?

Oh wait! You aren't responding. I guess when you don't have an answer, you don't have an answer.



What are you talking about?

Second, if you are not going to bother answering my questions, just say so.

Still not answers.

What's with the Polycarp thing? Are you getting paranoid now?

Also, noted that there are no answers from you yet again.

I agree rodahi. I think you need another holiday.

Nomad

Thanks for the reference Nomad. I am a monotheist. Michael I don't really think it matters what humanity will be after we die in the definition of "Supreme", but it will be superior. Again Supreme is the most,greatest, anything you want to put in there but it is the ultimate superior of all else. Angels are superior to us (now),and YHWH is superior to the Angels. They were created BY Him. Rodahi this goes for you too. I can't believe so many people here don't understand basic linguistics. (shaking my head).... Also, Michael, it may be unacceptable to you (as this whole topic is) but the humans judging the angels doctrine is a standard aspect of Christian theology (pretty hard to miss biblically) There's another verse as well that says we were created lower than the angels but we will one day be above, or judge them, that's the verse I'm thinking of. Only those who reject it would be considered smaller "sects" if you will. That's neither here nor there of course since to be Supreme is to supercede all others...and only one individual can do this.

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

Toto

I see there is some confusion - some people have been using the term "supreme being" when they mean "god". Supreme Being is one of those euphemisms for god, but technically it should only refer to a monotheistic god. I don't think that this undermines the idea that Judaism and its daughter religions, Christianity and Islam, have a polytheistic history that they can't shake.

Getting back to angels - the Hebrew god was originally the Canaanite god El, the linguistic basis of the Biblical name Elohim. The Hebrews were not originally monotheists - they worshipped El exclusively (or were punished for worshipping other gods), but believed that other gods existed - both rival gods and subordinate gods.

According to the Canaanite legend, El begat 70 sons by the goddess Asherah. The 70 lesser gods formed a council in the sky, known as the host of heaven in Deuteronomy. There are many references in the Old Testament to "God of gods, Lord of lords" which hark back to the pre-monotheistic days. When the Jews decided they were monotheists, these verses were retained, but references to "gods" were at times translated as "angels". In particular, Psalm 8:5 is translated in the KJV as "For you have made him (man) a little lower than the angels". The word "angels" is actually Elohim (god or gods) in the Hebrew.

I'm sure those 70 sons of El and Asherah were the basis of the host of angels.

Now, isn't this a lot more fun than trying to figure out how an omnipotent single god can also be onmibenevolent?

rodahi: "And you believe you are logical?"

Layman: Mostly. Why? What would be illogical would be to first claim that you weren't asserting that angels and satan were "supreme beings," then, in fact, proceed to defend that tortured classification in spite of all custom and usage.

There is nothing "tortured" in my questions or statements. Only someone who doesn't understand logic could believe so.

Layman: Moreover, it would be a fallacy to insist that a creature that is subordinate to another, is a "supreme being."

So, you think angels and Satan are subordinate to human beings? I think you said just the opposite earlier.

rodahi

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: Hmm... and have you answered my question yet?

Your questions are silly, Nomad.


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

Nomad: So you are responding here because...?

I felt like it.

Nomad: Oh wait! You aren't responding. I guess when you don't have an answer, you don't have an answer.

Are you referring to yourself, Nomad? Please make some sense. And stop being so silly.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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


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

Nomad: What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Nomad: Second, if you are not going to bother answering my questions, just say so.

What are you talking about?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Still not answers.

And you are still being silly.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


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

Nomad: What's with the Polycarp thing? Are you getting paranoid now?

What's with the penatis thing? Are you getting paranoid now? Nomad, please make some sense here.

Nomad: Also, noted that there are no answers from you yet again.

Also, noted is the fact that you are so silly, Nomad.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh!
rodahi


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

Nomad: I agree rodahi. I think you need another holiday.

Nomad

Sheesh, Nomad. What a howler! LOL. I think you need another holiday. Oh, and stop being so silly and try to make some sense for a change.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
Michael, how do you expect a Christian to react when you insist that he, in fact, worships Satan? Or even angels.

I would expect him to examine seriously why so many other religions think him a polythiest. Christians clearly revere, admire, flatter, are obsessed with and fascinated by, Satan. He appears in prose and poetry, movies, song and art. How may people know that Milton and Dante wrote sequels to their poems about Hell and Satan? Which is judged better, Paradise Lost or Paradise Regain'd? In many churches on the Christian Reich there is a clear fascination with his mighty power. After all, they made him Prince of this planet, which is just a euphemism for god of the earth.

So no, outright worship of Satan isn't openly practiced in Christian churches. Instead, we get a widespread reverence for Scratch throughout Christian culture. What's the difference?

As for angels, turn on the TV. Again we see the same obsession, the same reverence, the same fascination, the same accounts of personal experience in literature and popular art. It stops short of outright worship, but an outsider should be forgiven for concluding that Christians revere angels as powerful beings.

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.

I agree. That may, however, account for many of the social differences between Catholics and Protestants, such as the higher tolerance of Catholics for those different from them (in modern US). Andrew Greeley has an interesting book on this -- The Catholic Imagination

But Protestantism is not much better with its extensive and obsessive demonology. Many of those demons were also once foreign gods, just as many of the saints were. I don't know that it is a better deal to trade saints for demons, and worship of one for repressed fascination with the other.

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.

Well, if you declare Satan your greatest foe, and then express admiration and reverence for him in all your art and literature, you gotta admit things look pretty questionable. If you worship YHWH, but pray to Mary, what am I to conclude?

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?

It isn't just a matter of semantics to you (it is to me, though. Belief in gods is ridiculous regardless of label). And if you people weren't so committed to defending positions that are clearly contradictory, incoherent, and even evil, we would not be abusing you. All you had to do was say: "You know, the Catholic Church's obsession with saints, angels, demons, devils, holy sites and Mary sure does look polytheistic" and then you would only have been stuck defending Protestantism, which is a tougher nut to crack from the polytheistic angle. Then you dragged in Islam and Judiasm. Well, I'm happy to label either or both polytheistic; we both know that early Israel was polytheist, and Islam today suffers from many of the same problems the Catholic Church does, or worse (what is a houri?).

Your religions are an evolved mish-mash from polytheistic pasts. Of course they still carry that past within them. Your position is not really defensible. I don't know why it is so important to be monotheist; the debate is similar to that over Hitler and Stalin; nobody wants to claim them, and nobody wants to be labeled a polytheist, even when they clearly are.

Michael

Toto

A similar thread in the Open Religious Discussion Forum is actually quite interesting and informed once you get past the smart-ass comments:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000130.html

This topic really seems to push the Christians' buttons. Have to find more like it.

For the record, I am a Protestant who is only defending the Protestant view......on to my discussion.

The statement that Supreme Being can only be used to regard a monotheist God, and therefore does not apply to Christianity is beneath you. It has a philosophical name as a fallacy but it escapes me. Anyway, the error is that it assumes the conclusion in its proposition. (it assumes that Christianity is polytheistic, therefore said word "Supreme Being" cannot apply to any Christian God) Is the Christian God the only God worshipped by Christians?(discarding the Trinity issue). Without doubt, He is. You've already retired the Satan is a Supreme Being issue, so I don't understand why you continue to argue it. Since no one seems to desire definitions, I will go ahead and do it for you.

su·preme (s-prm)
adj. su·prem·er, su·prem·est. Abbr. supr.

1)Greatest in power, authority, or rank; .
2)Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.
3)Ultimate; final: the supreme sacrifice.

As you can see to be supreme means to supercede all others, I don't have to accept ultimate, either, for my argument to be valid. So there can be no multiple supreme beings. Satan is not a supreme being. He is a supernatural being, he is superior to the human being (at this point in time), and in the future he will be inferior to human beings. Presently he is an inferior being to God/YHWH. I think Layman hit it on the head when you defined monotheism as the belief that there is only one spirit being. This is false, but to accept it of course, means that human beings themselves are spirit beings, therefore Gods. Deists even believe this, so you are no longer left with a single Monotheist belief system. You have given no reason, again, why I should accept your definition of God, you have not answered how you can accept various definitions of God when they are contradictory. You must accept one, and then show logically why it is the "right" one to accept. Yet you have given no reason as to why the definition -God = spirit being-should be accepted, only responding with "why should I accept yours?" I have answered "since it is the Christian belief that is being examined". Not any other. As an atheist you have a particularly low credibility factor on the question of the definition of God. As a Naturalist it would seem to pertain little to your personal life, hence you'd generally have no reason to even contemplate the definition of God. You have accepted it because it annoys Christians, and I find this to be the probable reason that you cannot defend it. You have not contemplated it in full. This is of course an ad hominum, but it bears noting. Late, Shaun


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