How/why is Christianity a monotheism?

[Edge]

That said, Plissken is right in terms of the fact that it is not people we're talking about here, but "spiritual" forces.

Actually, no. I don't think there's any logic in believing that the concept of a 'higher power' could involve a sub-par (or total lack of) personality. And even if you do find it conceivable: within the province of religion, 'higher power' or 'god' necessarily implies a more highly developed personality - and a far greater intellect.

The idea of a nebulous 'spiritual force' is a belief peculiar to paganism and Star Wars.

So Edge, I take it that you do not believe that satan is in any way subordinate to god, and nor does he obey god in any way?

Remember, what I said earlier was

If god says to satan, give that person hives, is it satan's will that the person has hives?

Forget the "aspects" question for a moment, and just think about that question.

Actually, the only issue I had was with the word 'aspect', which implies that God and the Adversary are the same being. Aside from that, you present a great argument for Christian theology.

The literal translation of 'angel', is 'messenger'. Satan / Lucifer is a 'fallen messenger' but as it doesn't possess true free will, as we do, it has no choice but to carry out the ultimate will of the Father.

The purpose for that? My personal theory (which may not be endorsed by my "leaders" ) is that God wants us to choose to love Him - but any choice is meaningless unless there is an alternative. Hence the moral necessity for the existence of the Adversary.

[[Syl]]

The literal translation of 'angel', is 'messenger'.

Apparently, though, that's only (or mostly) from the Greek. The hebrew word for angel, malak (which is remarkably similar to the word for sailor, ... and king) is dramatically different than the word for messenger. However, sometimes angels are referred to as "messengers of god" (shliak ha').

My point: perhaps not all angels are messengers.

[Edge]

Apparently, though, that's only (or mostly) from the Greek. The hebrew word for angel, malak (which is remarkably similar to the word for sailor, ... and king) is dramatically different than the word for messenger. However, sometimes angels are referred to as "messengers of god" (shliak ha').

My point: perhaps not all angels are messengers.

Yeah, I was specifically referring to the Greek.

Partly because I was trying to avoid getting side-tracked into the (admittedly fascinating) issue of 'rankings' of angels (and archangels)... seraphim, cherubim, thrones, principalities, powers, etc.

Nonetheless, I think the general principle that all angels are in some ways 'emissaries' of God is a valid one.

[Plissken]

That said, Plissken is right in terms of the fact that it is not people we're talking about here, but "spiritual" forces.

Actually, no. I don't think there's any logic in believing that the concept of a 'higher power' could involve a sub-par (or total lack of) personality. And even if you do find it conceivable: within the province of religion, 'higher power' or 'god' necessarily implies a more highly developed personality - and a far greater intellect.

The idea of a nebulous 'spiritual force' is a belief peculiar to paganism and Star Wars.

Actually, yes. I don't know where the Star Wars refrence fits in, but as for paganism, Pantheistic religions are replete with fully formed personalities and aspects. Christianity is almost unique in its insistence that its deities remain at best nebulous, and at worst two dimensional - Patrician, Mediator, and Formless Power - and then fills in the rest of the pantheon with the same ranks of Messengers, Adversaries, Consorts, etc., as the other religions, but then denies them the status of godhood.

So the question remains: If the forces of "Good" are aspects of a single deity in the Christian religion, why (notice that word!) should the rest of the pantheon be denied both deification and inclusion in the godhead?

(Why the distinction is so important as to cause offence when questioned is another question entirely.)

[Fist and Faith]

The literal translation of 'angel', is 'messenger'. Satan / Lucifer is a 'fallen messenger' but as it doesn't possess true free will, as we do, it has no choice but to carry out the ultimate will of the Father.

The purpose for that? My personal theory (which may not be endorsed by my "leaders" ) is that God wants us to choose to love Him - but any choice is meaningless unless there is an alternative. Hence the moral necessity for the existence of the Adversary.

I'm not sure I understand you. It sounds like you're saying it was not Satan's choice to rebel, but God's choice that Satan rebel. At which point God cast Satan out.

[Avatar]

The literal translation of 'angel', is 'messenger'. Satan / Lucifer is a 'fallen messenger' but as it doesn't possess true free will, as we do, it has no choice but to carry out the ultimate will of the Father.

I agree with Fist here, and essentially, that's the point I was trying to make. Satan has no free will, (as I said earlier, I am under the impression that no angels do), and that means he fulfills gods devine plan, which means that everything he does is part of that plan, all the way from tempting jesus, to being defeated after his imprisonment for the 1000 years of peace.

If this is so, then what is the point? He's the ultimate fall guy, destined to lose no matter what.

Jem-- I disagree. Look at the example of the officer summoning somebody. Is the messenger being obeyed? Or is the originator of the message being obeyed? That makes all the difference. The messenger is the tool. The instrument of the sender of the message. In this instance, he doesn't count as an independant entity. (Morally perhaps, in that he may have "chosen" to obey, if it's a choice in the first place, but logically?)

--Avatar

[Edge]

Actually, yes. I don't know where the Star Wars refrence fits in, but as for paganism, Pantheistic religions are replete with fully formed personalities and aspects.

Sure, I never said they weren't. And the Star Wars reference is to the 'Force', the concept of a nebulous supernatural force, without personality or morality, that can be drawn upon to gain supernatural powers.

Christianity is almost unique in its insistence that its deities remain at best nebulous, and at worst two dimensional - Patrician, Mediator, and Formless Power

I have no idea why you think that; one of the main tenets of Christianity is that God is intimately involved in our lives and seeks to establish a relationship with us. The Bible describes very specific characteristics of God personality, and emphasises qualities of each of the Trinity.

- and then fills in the rest of the pantheon with the same ranks of Messengers, Adversaries, Consorts, etc., as the other religions, but then denies them the status of godhood.

It's a simple distinction between Creator and Created.

I'm not sure I understand you. It sounds like you're saying it was not Satan's choice to rebel, but God's choice that Satan rebel. At which point God cast Satan out.

My reasoning (not intended to represent Christianity in general, or any church) is:

God, being omniscient, knew that Lucifer would fall, even before He created him.
Being omnipotent, He could have prevented that, but chose not to.
Therefore, even though Satan made his own choice to rebel against the throne of Heaven, it was something that God allowed to happen.

[Vector]

- and then fills in the rest of the pantheon with the same ranks of Messengers, Adversaries, Consorts, etc., as the other religions, but then denies them the status of godhood.

It's a simple distinction between Creator and Created.

Simple ? I think not. Convenient, perhaps.

I always find it interesting how Christianity condemns other religions for worshipping more than one God. Then fills up its own pantheon with entities who from the perspective of those other religions would certainly be defined as deities - but through a convenient dogmatic sleight of hand defines them as simply creations or aspects, etc. Not that such concepts stopped those other religions from defining their entities as gods...

[Edge]

Simple ? I think not. Convenient, perhaps.

I always find it interesting how Christianity condemns other religions for worshipping more than one God. Then fills up its own pantheon with entities who from the perspective of those other religions would certainly be defined as deities - but through a convenient dogmatic sleight of hand defines them as simply creations or aspects, etc. Not that such concepts stopped those other religions from defining their entities as gods...

What's so complicated? On the one hand we have God, eternal, uncreated, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. On the other hand we have His creation - the universe/s, and everything else. There is no pantheon, and only God is worshipped.

I'm not sure why this concept upsets you,or why you dismiss it as 'convenient'. Convenient to whom? Do you feel angels are being denied their rights?

[Vector]

What's so complicated?

I guess I think of it as not being simple since to some degree it is a question of semantics, and semantics are rarely simple.

I refer to convenience since I think a lot of the insistence on defining the other entities in the pantheon as being non-deities is simply to conform to the first commandment.

I'm not sure why this concept upsets you,or why you dismiss it as 'convenient'. Convenient to whom? Do you feel angels are being denied their rights?

Actually, it doesn't upset me at all, I just find it interesting. To the contrary, I have the utmost respect for what each person wants to believe individually, for me that is religion.

[nuk]

I refer to convenience since I think a lot of the insistence on defining the other entities in the pantheon as being non-deities is simply to conform to the first commandment.

Doh! I don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier. The first commandment is (once I've been hit over the head with it) an obvious reason why this is important to Christians.

[Edge]

I refer to convenience since I think a lot of the insistence on defining the other entities in the pantheon as being non-deities is simply to conform to the first commandment.

Doh! I don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier. The first commandment is (once I've been hit over the head with it) an obvious reason why this is important to Christians.

Serously, why is this such an issue? Why is it important to you that Christianity be seen to have a 'pantheon'? It doesn't; that's something every branch of Christianity agrees on: only God, as the eternal, Divine being, the Creator, is worthy of worship.

I'm sorry if it somehow offends you, but Christianity really is a monotheism. One Deity. One God. One Creator. Every other entity: finite, created beings.

[nuk]

Serously, why is this such an issue? Why is it important to you that Christianity be seen to have a 'pantheon'? It doesn't; that's something every branch of Christianity agrees on: only God, as the eternal, Divine being, the Creator, is worthy of worship.

It just confused me why Christians would argue for monotheism when polytheism seemed to have the better arguments. I don't really care if you define it to be monotheistic. Now that (I think) I understand why, I'm satisfied.

[Edge]

It just confused me why Christians would argue for monotheism when polytheism seemed to have the better arguments. I don't really care if you define it to be monotheistic. Now that (I think) I understand why, I'm satisfied.

In this case, it really isn't a matter of my personal definition. It's basic Christian theology. And it's not something Christians 'argue for', it's a statement of their faith. Christians believe there's only one God; pantheists don't. That's their prerogative, as is our belief in one true God.

As long as you don't try to pretend that Christianity is a pantheism in disguise, it's all good.

[Plissken]

The distinction between creator and created also exists in all of the major pantheons, but does not deny godhood to the created gods. Some pantheons have gods created by simple procreation, some are created out of mud and then have life given to them by a creator god or goddess, some of them are assembled out of parts from an earlier god, etc.

It was the jews who rejected several of their pantheon, and declared God to be the only god, and relegated several others to the role of messengers and whatnot. They were then followed by Paul, who added a couple of other gods to the pantheon, and then the Catholics who venerated a plethora of saints and apostles and a consort.

Only the stigma about pantheism that originated with the jews kept Mary from becoming a goddess figure, and forced Jesus and the Holy Spirit into the role of aspects of the One "True" God.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm not sure I understand you. It sounds like you're saying it was not Satan's choice to rebel, but God's choice that Satan rebel. At which point God cast Satan out.

My reasoning (not intended to represent Christianity in general, or any church) is:

God, being omniscient, knew that Lucifer would fall, even before He created him.
Being omnipotent, He could have prevented that, but chose not to.
Therefore, even though Satan made his own choice to rebel against the throne of Heaven, it was something that God allowed to happen.

I don't yet know if you believe something I don't understand, or if you're turning a blind eye to what I see as what is, at best, a questionable act on God's part. According to what I think you believe, God didn't merely know that the rebellion would happen because of omnipotence, and didn't merely allow it to happen.

As you say, God created Satan. I think you believe God created Satan in every detail of physicality and personality, and you definitely believe God created Satan without free will. That being the case, one wouldn't even need omniscience to know that Satan would rebel; God intentionally created Satan in such a way that Satan would rebel. He couldn't not rebel.

God created a robot that would do and say things that looked like rebellious acts, then God performed actions that made it look like he was punishing the robot. I understand what you said earlier about needing Satan so that we could have a choice. But why go through the charade of rebellion and casting out? Why not simply create this evil being off somewhere else in the first place?

This all reminds me of a discussion I had some years ago. It would be one thing for me to gain omniscience, and be able to see how every single particle in existence would interact with every other particle for the rest of eternity. It's another thing to have omniscience when giving all of those particles their original configuration. Without somehow putting free will (which I do believe we have) into the picture, nothing that ever happens could be other than the result of the one who started it all while knowing exactly what would happen.

[dennisrwood]

i think your getting stuck on predestination. you can still have free will and predestination.

[Avatar]

Great post Fist. Damn. I came into the close this morning, and my firstthought was that it had been quiet overnight. Now I can't even add much to this, except to tell you that I agree.

God created a robot that would do and say things that looked like rebellious acts, then God performed actions that made it look like he was punishing the robot.

And then allows the robot to take the blame for all the bad things that happen, while in fact, the robot was created specifically to do those bad things?

--Avatar

[Fist and Faith]

dennis, can you put what you believe into words? Of course, that might be different from what Edge believes. He said Satan does not have free will. (Actually, Edge, you said "true" free will. If you mean anything specific by that, maybe you could explain?) I've always been interested in this seeming contradiction, which Kwai Chang Caine also believed in . I even tried to explain it here:
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4771&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
I'd love any other thoughts on the topic.