Kevin's Watch

When I was a kid in religion class, they taught us that Christianity was a monotheism, and made it sound like that was better/more modern than a polytheism.
But I wonder, is it really a monotheism? Even if you ignore the whole three-gods-in-one issue, there's still Satan and the angels to consider. Satan is a supernatural being that rivals God and has his own domain. The angels are also beings with supernatural powers. Why don't they count?
Is it because only one entity is omnipotent or the creator? The religions that were called polytheistic by my teachers, like the Greek pantheon, didn't have (to my knowledge) multiple creators and usually none were omnipotent.
And why is this point seen as important by Christians? Is it because monotheisms are more modern and they don't want to be seen as being old-fashioned? Or am I missing something fundamental?

This has always been a contradiction of Christianity, Angels/Saints/Satan etc. at the very least are demi-gods. Then there is the Holy Trinity as well as the Virgin Mary who in many cultures is worshipped almost as strongly as Christ or God - making yet another deity.

Some argue that these are all multiple aspects of one god - but it seems to me you can make that argument about most polytheistic religions as well.

nuk,

Christianity is a monotheism because Christians believe in one God and his three "faces": the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Christ is a personification of God. The Father is "God" in the traditional sense. And the Holy Spirit is something more of a mystery...A gift Jesus gave to us.

In this, it draws a parallel to Hindiusm.

Angels and Satan do not make Christianity constitue as a polytheism because angels are created beings of God, and Satan is a fallen angel.

*

The angels are represented throughout the Bible as a body of spiritual beings intermediate between God and men: "You have made him (man) a little less than the angels" (Psalm 8:6). They, equally with man, are created beings; "praise ye Him, all His angels: praise ye Him, all His hosts . . . for He spoke and they were made. He commanded and they were created" (Psalm 148:2, 5: Colossians 1:16, 17). That the angels were created was laid down in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). The decree "Firmiter" against the Albigenses declared both the fact that they were created and that men were created after them. This decree was repeated by the Vatican Council, "Dei Filius". We mention it here because the words: "He that liveth for ever created all things together" (Ecclesiasticus 18:1) have been held to prove a simultaneous creation of all things; but it is generally conceded that "together" (simul) may here mean "equally", in the sense that all things were "alike" created. They are spirits; the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister to them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?" (Heb. i, 14).

www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm

This function of the angelic host is expressed by the word "assistance" (Job, i, 6: ii, 1), and our Lord refers to it as their perpetual occupation (Matt., xviii, 10). More than once we are told of seven angels whose special function it is thus to "stand before God's throne" (Tob., xii, 15; Apoc., viii, 2-5). The same thought may be intended by "the angel of His presence" (Is., lxiii, 9) an expression which also occurs in the pseudo-epigraphical "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs".

Devils:

Here it is clearly taught that the Devil and the other demons are spiritual or angelic creatures created by God in a state of innocence, and that they became evil by their own act. It is added that man sinned by the suggestion of the Devil, and that in the next world the wicked shall suffer perpetual punishment with the Devil. The doctrine which may thus be set forth in a few words has furnished a fruitful theme for theological speculation for the Fathers and Schoolmen, as well as later theologians, some of whom, Suarez for example, have treated it very fully. On the other hand it has also been the subject of many heretical or erroneous opinions, some of which owe their origin to pre-Christian systems of demonology. In later years Rationalist writers have rejected the doctrine altogether, and seek to show that it has been borrowed by Judaism and Christianity from external systems of religion wherein it was a natural development of primitive Animism (q. v.).

It's pretty clear then, that angels and devils are not gods.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Angels and Satan do not make Christianity constitue as a polytheism because angels are created beings of God, and Satan is a fallen angel.

In many polytheistic religions, some of the gods are creation or offspring of other gods - but they are still gods. Angels/demons etc. certainly have god-like aspects and seem for the most part to be immortal. That is why I say they are at the very least demi-gods.

Also, trying to explain away the various "icons" of Christianity such as God, Christ, The Holy Spirit and even the Virgin Mary as aspects of one god from a worship point of view seems to be a form of rationalization. After all, many worshippers of these icons are praying to a specific one of these icons and attribute characteristics and personality to each of them, meaning to a worshipper there are multiple deities, even if a theologian declares they are aspects of only one - what defines a religion for teh worshipper his own or someone scholars beliefs ?

Vector,

In many polytheistic religions, some of the gods are creation or offspring of other gods - but they are still gods. Angels/demons etc. certainly have god-like aspects and seem for the most part to be immortal. That is why I say they are at the very least demi-gods.

This is true, yet theologically angels and devils are not defined as "demi-gods." They are defined instead as "messengers of God." Now personally, I feel that angels as messengers, in Scripture, are often used as metaphors...But that is certainly another story.

Humanity was also created by God, "in his image," as the Scriptures say.

Regarding the Trinity: anything you want to know about it can be found here, www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm.

what defines a religion for teh worshipper his own or someone scholars beliefs ?

That is up to the worshipper.

Lord Mhoram wrote:This is true, yet theologically angels and devils are not defined as "demi-gods." They are defined instead as "messengers of God." Now personally, I feel that angels as messengers, in Scripture, are often used as metaphors...But that is certainly another story.

Just as Mercury was the messenger of the gods - while still being a god himself. My point being that since we are comparing these entities to gods of other religions, we should also interpret our pantheon in the perspective of those religions. Our scriptures may label our servants of god as something less than a god, and yet their parallels in other religions would certainly be in the divine realm.

Conversely, taking for example the greco/roman pantheon. Many of the deities represent aspects of nature and from that point of view we could argue that they are in fact faces of one god -so then should declare them as not being monotheistic ? I think you get my point.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Now personally, I feel that angels as messengers, in Scripture, are often used as metaphors...But that is certainly another story.

Yes, I feel that way as well - everything is a metaphor for the complex universe, all of which are various aspects of the unknown/God. However, this ties in with my earlier argument, how in any religion the various divine incarnations are metaphors for aspects of the divine. After all, what is a metaphor but a way to visualize something which is otherwise inconceivable.

Vector,

Just as Mercury was the messenger of the gods - while still being a god himself. My point being that since we are comparing these entities to gods of other religions, we should also interpret our pantheon in the perspective of those religions. Our scriptures may label our servants of god as something less than a god, and yet their parallels in other religions would certainly be in the divine realm.

I guess you can say that, but comparing Hermes to Christian angels is comparing apples and oranges: the Greek pantheon is a pagan religion where different gods perform different functions in the natural world and where gods represent emotions etc.

Now I agree with you: the line between "monotheism" and "polytheism" is a fine one. If we take a very simple definition of polytheism (dictionary.com):

The worship of or belief in more than one god.

, then Christianity is a monotheism.

Regarding deities as metaphors: As a Christian, obviously, I feel Christianity is a bit different. I certainly do not view Christ as a metaphor, nor God the Father. And like I said, the Holy Spirit is something of a mystery to me. And to everyone, I imagine.

Ultimately, whether or not Christianity is a monotheism doesn't really affect your faith, does it? It shouldn't, IMO.

The distinction between the monotheistic and polytheistic religions is on surface a simple one: The polytheists see all these beings as individual entities, whereas the monotheists believe they are all aspects of a single entity. The two religions could have exactly the same figures, but they would be defined differently because of that (seemingly) simple difference in belief.

I say the difference is simple 'on the surface' because it is actually a much deeper distinction - the move from polytheism to montheism is quite a large conceptual leap.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Ultimately, whether or not Christianity is a monotheism doesn't really affect your faith, does it? It shouldn't, IMO.

Absolutely not, but to me this debate is not about faith, but rather interpretation. I am definitely monotheistic, though not necessarily in the Christian sense since I don't really believe it is possible for an organized religion to define what god is - and therefore we have to look inside ourselves to find Him.

Lord Mhoram wrote:I guess you can say that, but comparing Hermes to Christian angels is comparing apples and oranges: the Greek pantheon is a pagan religion where different gods perform different functions in the natural world and where gods represent emotions etc.

But couldn't you say that each of those functions is a function of God and is thus utimately just a symbol of His hand ? Also, under Catholocism, various Patron Saints are appointed domains, and thus given functions.
A greek sailor would pray to Neptune to ward him from shipwreck, and so a Catholic would pray to Saint Anthony of Padua for the same reason.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

Quote: wrote:The worship of or belief in more than one god.

Murrin wrote:I say the difference is simple 'on the surface' because it is actually a much deeper distinction - the move from polytheism to montheism is quite a large conceptual leap.

Though the church may officially define Christianity as having one god, I often believe it is conceptions of the worshippers that define the religion. Evenif the official theologians of the church state that there is only one god, as long as the people who are actually worshipping the Gods conceive of the various aspects as independent entities, then as far as the populace is concerned they are following a polytheistic belief system.

That is why Judaism and Islam have largely stricken icons and angels out of the modern practice of those religions, since this ambiguitity/duality of beliefs created too many contradictions.

Vector,

But couldn't you say that each of those functions is a function of God and is thus utimately just a symbol of His hand ?

I think you are trying to put Greek paganism into a modern theological and Christian perspective and you are misinterpreting it. Their gods are not really intended to be faces of a single entity, IMO.

Regarding saints, I don't really know where the idea of "patron saints" comes from, but I do know that they are not like gods at all, but rather notable Christians that the Church is honoring and calling at least somewhat divine.

Lord Mhoram wrote:I think you are trying to put Greek paganism into a modern theological and Christian perspective and you are misinterpreting it. Their gods are not really intended to be faces of a single entity, IMO.

Of course, since we have leisure to reinterpret our religion in modern terms, it seems fair to see how are modern interpretations can be applied to other religions. Great thinkers of ancient times, such as Plato had monotheistic concepts - and I am sure many of the philosophers of the times most likely considered the pantheon of the populace in similar terms as we now consider the various entities of Catholicism.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Regarding saints, I don't really know where the idea of "patron saints" comes from, but I do know that they are not like gods at all, but rather notable Christians that the Church is honoring and calling at least somewhat divine.

But nevertheless, many people pray to these icons and even you are calling them somewhat divine, which is another term for godlike (or as I like to say, a demi-god).

I ask you, what defines what a religion is ? What the people believe and pray to - or what the theologians declare is the truth ? And if they are different, why do they allow these dual perceptions to continue to exist ?

In my opinion it is the beliefs that dictate what a religion is -and if the populace is believing one thing (at an internal level) and the theologians are believing another - then I argue that they are in effect believing in two different religions - even if they nominally share the same name.

Vector,

Saints are divine only because they have so faithfully served God's will that we venerate them. Without God they, like the rest of us, are nothing.

In my opinion it is the beliefs that dictate what a religion is -and if the populace is believing one thing (at an internal level) and the theologians are believing another - then I argue that they are in effect believing in two different religions - even if they nominally share the same name.

This certainly happens sometimes, but many people follow theological dogma of their religion.

And then that raises the question how how details that sometimes causes the differences in views between theologians and the populace really matter to the religion as a whole.

Lord Mhoram wrote:And then that raises the question how how details that sometimes causes the differences in views between theologians and the populace really matter to the religion as a whole.

And from that you can question how differences in views between religions really matter to the perception of God ? This is my fundamental belief, that we all, independent of which organized (or personal) belief system we choose to follow, are ultimately worshipping the same being. (Do you think he is wearing an ochre robe ? )

Vector,

An interesting theory. Food for thought, certainly.

What a great discussion. Read it with the utmost interest. As a non-believer myself, I can easily see Vectors comparison between the "divine beings" if you like of various religions. To somebody to whom none of them have any particular significance, the concepts at least are so similar as to be almost identical.

Of course, as Lord Mhoram points out, christians must, of necessity, have a different view thereof, but if you consider it objectively, (without the filter of belief), the similarities are obvious.

I think the monotheism of christianity is simply down to the fact that it grew from (the first?) monotheistic religion, Judaism. In fact, the only monotheistic religions I can think of all have the same semitic roots and all share the first five books of their holy writings.

--Avatar

Vector wrote:In many polytheistic religions, some of the gods are creation or offspring of other gods - but they are still gods. Angels/demons etc. certainly have god-like aspects and seem for the most part to be immortal. That is why I say they are at the very least demi-gods.

In Christianity, mankind is immortal also, so does that make us demi-gods? If we don't define these terms, it seems like we'll never get anywhere. What is monotheism? Polytheism? God[s]? I would consider Christianity monotheistic b/c there is one God, who created EVERYTHING else. Anything created is not a God. Just b/c it is supernatural, such as angels, and may have powers beyond the natural, doesn't mean they are gods. Unless the definition of gods is anything supernatural.

I tell you, and it is written in your own law, that you are gods

John 10:34

--Avatar

In the Old Testament, the judges were known as gods b/c they held the fate of men in their hands.

Hmm, quite apart from the fact that that is not the OT, I can't imagine religious folks, in those times or any other doing that, (unless perhaps you're not talking about the Jews/Christians, got any references?)

God presides in the heavenly council; in the assembly of the gods he gives his decision.

Psalms 82:1

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:Hmm, quite apart from the fact that that is not the OT, I can't imagine religious folks, in those times or any other doing that, (unless perhaps you're not talking about the Jews/Christians, got any references?)
--Avatar

Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6, if you read a little farther you would've hit it. Two commentators on blueletterbible.org talk about judges referred to as gods.

www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/11152 ... 2.html#132