Doctor X

Neither the OT nor the NT are monotheistic.

--J.D.

Calzaer

Magus, why does God need servants?

Jeremy_the _Atheist

Despite the lengths Christians go through to claim a Trinitarian Monotheism, 3 still does not equal one. Christianity is Polytheism.

Doctor X

Before someone starts jumping down Jeremy_the_Atheists' throat screaming that the Trinity was a concept original to NT, it was not. It was applied to the NT stories.

Most of the followers of Junior never figure out who he is. There are many possible explanations for this; however, the bottom line is that the authors intended Junior to be a divine figure which his own followers do not recogize.

Mk does not have a problem with a Junior praying to Big Daddy. It is not an odd thing. He is not praying to himself! Lk and Mt do not "correct" Mk--it is not an issue for them either. Lk, of course, will have a separate "spirit" visit the disciples in Acts. Jn also has Junior pray to Big Daddy.

It would not be until later that the need for "one god and one god only" that this would become a problem.

Monotheists have never solved it.

--J.D.

[Edited for clarity.--Ed.]

Cleopatra

I do not disagree with you but on the other hand, today, you cannot say to a Christian: " You know something, you believe in polytheism".

The whole Trinity Project shows in the most clear way that Christianity was not original at all in fact it brought only one original concept in the History of Ideas ( Forgiveness) but this is exactly what makes the whole effort admirable. I talking about the effort /project not the essence.

Yangja Isuko

A Deity would be any being with powers that transcend human abilities by a significant degree. Demons, Angels, Satan would all fall into this catagory, and thus christianity is, polytheistic. The fact that they only worship one deity does not change this, as they believe in the existence of more than one.

capnkirk

Yeah, I know the history...it was the monotheism/polytheism issue that precipitated the Nicaean Trinity "fix". That is what makes it satisfying only to those for whom it was never a problem in the first place. Had Constantine I (as self-proclaimed ruler of the Kingdom of God on Earth) not held a particular point of view (which was the one that the First Nicaean Council chose) the issue might have continued to ferment for several more centuries. Had Xtianity not needed (monotheistic) Judaic roots to demonstrate its claim to antiquity, the mono/poly would probably never been an issue at all.

My observation/query RE: angels and demons was to find out if there was a sound anthropological baseline for categorizing the religion of any given culture as: Mono- Duo- Poly- or Pan-theistic...primarily to see how Xtianity, Judaism, and Islam shape up when an impartial standard is used. So far, no one has offered any hope that any such standard or even a guideline exists. No one has been able to do any better than to demonstrate that it is all totally subjective.

Maybe the importance of such classifications rests on the need of (the so-called) monotheistic Abrahamic religions to be regarded as superior, like monotheism somehow confers superiority. I don't recall in any Greek literature how Greeks were somehow embarrassed that they weren't monotheistic, same for the Romans, Hindu, et al.

Too bad the world hasn't taken that process to the next step. That is, if ONE god is better than TWO (or more) gods, then ZERO gods should be better still!! Buddhism is a perfect example of mankind's extreme reluctance to do this. Within a hundred years after Siddhartha created a religion that had no god, his followers had injected god(s) into the theology.

Magus55

Incorrect. That is not the definition of a diety.

From Websters:

1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b capitalized : GOD 1, SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Angels/Demons are not divine or supreme beings - there goes definition 1

They are no gods or goddesses, there goes number 2

And angels and demons are not exalted, nor are they supremely good or powerful. There goes 3

Sorry, angels and demons are not deities, and Christianity is not polytheistic, try again.

Calzaer

Hey! A thought occurred to me!

If Christianity really is monotheistic, that means Jesus impregnated Mary with himself! And since Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, that means Jesus was born of man, and that Mary had known man, which means Mary wasn't actually a virgin - she committed incest with her as-yet-unborn son!

capnkirk

God: of the Xtians, by the Xtians, and as defined BY the Xtians. Sorry, Magus...simply not objective. We're not debating whether Xtians BELIEVE that Xtianity is monotheistic; that's a given. We're trying to test that conviction against a somewhat more objective standard. So, please don't quote Xtian dogma to me; if that were still effective, I wouldn't even BE an atheist!

According to your application of Webster then:

Horus was not a God, nor Ishtar, nor Marduk, nor Ba'al, nor Venus, nor Vishnu, nor Krishna, nor Siva, nor a whole host of others generally thought of as deities...because they aren't supreme. But Ahura-Mazda was and Zeus was, because they were supreme in their own hierarchies.

In fact, with the single exception of the Greek pantheon, there can be NO polytheistic nor pantheistic religions within your definition...UNLESS you consider definition 1a "the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY" which is the subjective catchall because it fails to appeal to any standard for divinity. IOW: "divine according to whom?" If I assign divine status to (fill in the blank) and you don't, does that mean that _______ IS or ISN'T a god?

The bottom line is still: Xtianity is monotheistic ONLY because Xtians say it is! ...Since we have only their own subjective assignments of divinity within their religious hierarchy. It's as subjective as believing Bill Clinton was being truthful when saying he didn't have sex with that woman. At best, he might have deluded himself into believing that his definition of sex extended beyond his own mind.

And you STILL won't address the query that is the basis for this thread...Is there or is there NOT a generally accepted anthropological standard for god status? :banghead:

Ultimately, in the absence of any objective, generally agreed upon, criteria, GOD is no longer a "being" but rather a concept. And to quote Kahlil Gibran, "A concept is like a window...through it you may be able to see the truth, nonetheless it separates you from the truth."