How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[Valke2]

Polytheism necessitates a belief in multiple, independent powers. It would seem to me that this would require an understnading that none of these dieties could be omnipotent (sp?). If that is the case, then there is as aspect of the finite for each diety. Which I think would mean that each deity would have human strengths as well as human weaknesses.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “human” strengths and weaknesses, but yes, you are correct. Polytheists do not see any deity as omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent or omnipresent or omni-anything.

If this is correct, and I haven’t spent much time thinking about polytheism, then at some level, the deities are no greater than us, putting aside issues of immoratlity and supernatural powers.

Well, looks to me like immortality and greater than human powers (since the Gods are part of nature, I don’t see their abilities as "super"natural), would make them a bit greater than us by default. They are a different order of being entirely.

Do you “put aside issues of immortality and supernatural powers” for your God?

It’s not an issue with my belief system, because I view God as the creator and source of everything. NOthing (not even nothing) exists outside of God.

Obviously, in a polytheistic sysem, the gods have powers that are way beyond human ability. But their use of such power seems to be constrained by limitations that go along with not being omnipotent. The only man with a gun in the village has powers that far exceed the rest of the village. But his choice on how to use that power is limited and governmed by human needs and wants.

 

[KarenNC]

It’s not an issue with my belief system, because I view God as the creator and source of everything. NOthing (not even nothing) exists outside of God.

Obviously, in a polytheistic sysem, the gods have powers that are way beyond human ability. But their use of such power seems to be constrained by limitations that go along with not being omnipotent. The only man with a gun in the village has powers that far exceed the rest of the village. But his choice on how to use that power is limited and governmed by human needs and wants.

Not sure where you are going with this? You are continuing to frame the actions/motivations/etc of the Gods within a human framework that, frankly, doesn’t apply. Humans and Gods are very different beings, and in fact hubris, presuming that we are or can be like the Gods, is a specific religious prohibition, at least in my religion. There is no concept of imitatio dei (though I don’t believe there is such in Judaism either AFAIK). The reverse is also true, that we cannot presume or expect the Gods to be like us.

The Gods are held to human standards of behavior no more than the Jewish and/or Christian God is.

 

[Petergee]

I guess to be technically correct, you didn’t actually make this statement yourself, but you do keep urging us to read a book which makes this claim, and you have continually defended it against any criticism. If even you are not sure if the claim has any validity, and as you have repeatedly failed to reproduce when asked, any of the reasons which the book, so you say, gives to support this claim, it’s hard to see why anyone should bother buying or reading it.

I invite you to show me where the book makes such a claim of a simple substitution.

I feel like I’m banging my head against a brick wall here. I have repeatedly said I have not read the book and have repeatedly asked you for the gist of its arguments., You said (post 44) “you might find the book by John Michael Greer, “A World Full of Gods: an inquiry into polytheism,” interesting. It looks at the classic logical proof for monotheism and applies them to polytheism. Interesting food for thought.” As your description of your “religion” seems to imply polytheism, naturally I concluded that you are saying the book’s arguments support your position.

**No, it’s not special pleading at all. Just that it depends to some extent on divine revelation. But revealed truths, if they are indeed true, must be totally conformable and compatible with reason, just like truths which can be deduced by unaided reason. **

Very well. Do you allow divine revelation (by which I mean statements about Him/Herself that are attributed to a God by His/Her followers) to be sufficient evidence for the truth of those statements for anyone other than the Christian God? If not, it is special pleading.

Only if there were no compelling evidence that the revelation is in fact divine.And please cut out the “His/Her” silliness, I’m trying to have a serious discussion here.

But you still haven’t given anything resembling a proof of polytheism. In fact you seem to be shifting to frank agnosticism.

I offered to allow you to pick an argument from the list of those discussed in the book. You picked the ontological argument. Since, though indeed one of the classical arguments for theism, this argument is not accepted as a reasonable argument for monotheism even by Christian scholars, there is no issue. Polytheism does not need to answer it. It fails on its own merits.

So omitting the padding, your argument seems to be:

1. The classic non-revelational rational proofs for the reality of God in natural theology may be applied similarly to “prove” the supposed existence of multiple “gods”.
2. One Christian considers that of these proofs, the ontological one is the most persuasive.
3. Some other Christians find it a weak argument.
4. Therefore there are multiple “gods”!
   You’ll excuse me for not being convinced by this “logic”.

 

[Petergee]

Not sure where you are going with this? You are continuing to frame the actions/motivations/etc of the Gods within a human framework that, frankly, doesn’t apply. Humans and Gods are very different beings, and in fact hubris, presuming that we are or can be like the Gods, is a specific religious prohibition, at least in my religion. There is no concept of imitatio dei (though I don’t believe there is such in Judaism either AFAIK). The reverse is also true, that we cannot presume or expect the Gods to be like us.

The Gods are held to human standards of behavior no more than the Jewish and/or Christian God is.

Maybe I’m assuming too much here, but if “Hellenic Neopagan” means you believe that the “gods” of the ancient Greeks are real, I’m surprised to see that you apparently know very little about them. The ancient Greek myths continually report the “gods” showing every possible human emotion and defect, indeed all seven of the Capital Sins. And when they don’t behave morally Zeus punishes them (though he himself is the worst offender!). They are simply humans who are immortal and who have certain limited supernatural powers.

And I pointed out before to you that it is fatuous to talk about “the Christian God”, “the Jewish God”, “the Moslem God” etc as if they were different Gods. NONE of these religions believe this, so please stop misrepresentimg what they all believe.

 

[Valke2]

Not sure where you are going with this? You are continuing to frame the actions/motivations/etc of the Gods within a human framework that, frankly, doesn’t apply. Humans and Gods are very different beings, and in fact hubris, presuming that we are or can be like the Gods, is a specific religious prohibition, at least in my religion. There is no concept of imitatio dei (though I don’t believe there is such in Judaism either AFAIK). The reverse is also true, that we cannot presume or expect the Gods to be like us.

The Gods are held to human standards of behavior no more than the Jewish and/or Christian God is.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems that as soon as you impose any limitations on gods, and since polytheism embraces multiple gods, which requires that each god have a set of limitations, you make them in a sense finite and human. By acknowledging thier limitations, even if we only know those limitations exist and not exactly what they are, each god becomes bound by those limitations and its actions or ability to act is governed by such limitation.

 

[KarenNC]

As your description of your “religion” seems to imply polytheism, naturally I concluded that you are saying the book’s arguments support your position. Only if there were no compelling evidence that the revelation is in fact divine.And please cut out the “His/Her” silliness, I’m trying to have a serious discussion here.

Yes, it does.

Are you ready to drop “this Father/Son/Holy Spirit silliness?”

**So omitting the padding, your argument seems to be:

1. The classic non-revelational rational proofs for the reality of God in natural theology may be applied similarly to “prove” the supposed existence of multiple “gods”.
2. One Christian considers that of these proofs, the ontological one is the most persuasive.
3. Some other Christians find it a weak argument.
4. Therefore there are multiple “gods”!
   You’ll excuse me for not being convinced by this “logic”.**

No, I said that polytheism need not answer the ontological argument because not even monotheists consider it to be a valid argument for monotheism vs. polytheism, so it poses no obstacle to polytheism. This is the gist of the argument in Greer’s book regarding the ontological argument.

 

[DLC]

The reason why Christianity is exclusive is not because man says so or is bigoted about his faith. Christianity is exclusive because God says His way is the only way to heaven.
John 14:5-6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
NASU
Acts 4:12
12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
NASU

 

[KarenNC]

Maybe I’m assuming too much here, but if “Hellenic Neopagan” means you believe that the “gods” of the ancient Greeks are real, I’m surprised to see that you apparently know very little about them. The ancient Greek myths continually report the “gods” showing every possible human emotion and defect, indeed all seven of the Capital Sins. And when they don’t behave morally Zeus punishes them (though he himself is the worst offender!). They are simply humans who are immortal and who have certain limited supernatural powers.

First, why should one expect the Gods of one religion to be bound by the prohibitions of the God of another (the capital sins)? Is your God bound by the prohibitions He places upon humanity?

I believe you are making the mistake of reading the myths only literally and sacred stories are never intended to be read as only such. The sacred stories of all religions have a much deeper purpose. If one were to read the Bible only literally, then one would have the same problems with your God, but I understand that there is more there than that.

And I pointed out before to you that it is fatuous to talk about “the Christian God”, “the Jewish God”, “the Moslem God” etc as if they were different Gods. NONE of these religions believe this, so please stop misrepresentimg what they all believe.

I have not claimed that this is what these religions teach, only that it is far from obvious to me that they are the same God. Hellenism doesn’t teach that the Gods are “simply who have immortality and certain superhuman powers” either.

 

[KarenNC]

I guess what I am trying to say is that it seems that as soon as you impose any limitations on gods, and since polytheism embraces multiple gods, which requires that each god have a set of limitations, you make them in a sense finite and human. By acknowledging thier limitations, even if we only know those limitations exist and not exactly what they are, each god becomes bound by those limitations and its actions or ability to act is governed by such limitation.

Firstly, we don’t “make” the Gods anything. They are what They are.

“Finite” as in less than omni-whatever particular measure we are discussing does not automatically equate with “human.”

Does Judaism teach that there are absolutely no limitations on God’s actions? I know Christianity and particularly Catholicism teaches that there are things God cannot do (look upon evil, behave in a manner contrary to His will–which seems pretty circular to me, but there it is–etc).

 

[Petergee]

As your description of your “religion” seems to imply polytheism, naturally I concluded that you are saying the book’s arguments support your position. Only if there were no compelling evidence that the revelation is in fact divine.And please cut out the “His/Her” silliness, I’m trying to have a serious discussion here.

Yes, it does.

Are you ready to drop “this Father/Son/Holy Spirit silliness?”

It was YOU who brought up the Trinity here and you continued throwing it about despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you it has nothing to do with the topic.

**So omitting the padding, your argument seems to be:

1. The classic non-revelational rational proofs for the reality of God in natural theology may be applied similarly to “prove” the supposed existence of multiple “gods”.
2. One Christian considers that of these proofs, the ontological one is the most persuasive.
3. Some other Christians find it a weak argument.
4. Therefore there are multiple “gods”!
   You’ll excuse me for not being convinced by this “logic”.**

No, I said that polytheism need not answer the ontological argument because not even monotheists consider it to be a valid argument for monotheism vs. polytheism, so it poses no obstacle to polytheism. This is the gist of the argument in Greer’s book regarding the ontological argument.

Thank you, at last! So the author (and presumably you also) admit that such arguments have nothing to do with polytheism. They are arguments for the reality versus unreality of God. They are made in the context of the existing consensus that the existence of multiple “gods” has already been excluded from any serious rational consideration because of its inherent contradictions.

 

[Valke2]

Firstly, we don’t “make” the Gods anything. They are what They are.

“Finite” as in less than omni-whatever particular measure we are discussing does not automatically equate with “human.”

Does Judaism teach that there are absolutely no limitations on God’s actions? I know Christianity and particularly Catholicism teaches that there are things God cannot do (look upon evil, behave in a manner contrary to His will–which seems pretty circular to me, but there it is–etc).

Judaism teaches that there is nothing that is beyond God. Paradoxically, we believe God chooses not to do certain things.

 

[KarenNC]

Yes I believe it does support my position.

It was YOU who brought up the Trinity here and you continued throwing it about despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you it has nothing to do with the topic.

To ask me to stop referring to my Gods using the pronouns His/Her and calling it silliness is as ridiculous as my asking you to not refer to the Trinity and to call it silliness when you do so.

So the author (and presumably you also) admit that such arguments have nothing to do with polytheism. They are arguments for the reality versus unreality of God. They are made in the context of the existing consensus that the existence of multiple “gods” has already been excluded from any serious rational consideration because of its inherent contradictions.

Quite the opposite. They are arguments for and against theism. There is more than one type of theism in the world. You simply choose to at least initially champion an argument that does not require any effort on polytheism’s part to refute as there is consensus even among monotheists that it simply does not hold water.

It is far from an “existing consensus” that the existence of multiple Gods should be excluded from discussions about religion and theology. You may have excluded it from your consideration, but millions have not done so. Please feel free to point out the inherent contradictions.

Also, in your opinion, what criteria does one use to determine if there is “compelling evidence that the revelation is in fact divine?”

 

[KarenNC]

Judaism teaches that there is nothing that is beyond God. Paradoxically, we believe God chooses not to do certain things.

Thanks. Seems a much more consistent position.

 

[Petergee]

Firstly, we don’t “make” the Gods anything. They are what They are.

You’re welcome to believe that, but as you can’t adduce any evidence to support your assertion, don’t expect anyone to accept it as the truth (as distinct from pretending to believe it because it is convenient)

“Finite” as in less than omni-whatever particular measure we are discussing does not automatically equate with “human.”

It certainly rules out “divine”. I said they were depicted as superhuman.

Does Judaism teach that there are absolutely no limitations on God’s actions? I know Christianity and particularly Catholicism teaches that there are things God cannot do (look upon evil, behave in a manner contrary to His will–which seems pretty circular to me, but there it is–etc).

Which Catechism did you get that out of? I can’t find it in mine. What you’re saying just boils down to “Catholicism teaches that two things which are logically contradictory cannot both be true”. It does teeach that everythingthat is good is of God, hence anything that is evil is not of God. If you think Catholicism teaches that God is finte, you’ve got a LOT to learn.

 

[Petergee]

To ask me to stop referring to my Gods using the pronouns His/Her and calling it silliness is as ridiculous as my asking you to not refer to the Trinity and to call it silliness when you do so.

Except that I asked you not to refer to The God as “Him/Her”. Just because you choose to “believe in” a bevy of “goddesses” as well as “gods” doesn’t mean you can assert that those who believe in God must believe in a bisexual God to satisfy some imagined cosmic affirmative action program (imposed by whom, I wonder? ).

Descending to your level of silliness would be for me to say "Christians believe God is a Trinity, therefore the ancient Greek “gods” and “goddesses” must have each been “trinities”!

Quite the opposite. They are arguments for and against theism. There is more than one type of theism in the world. You simply choose to at least initially champion an argument that does not require any effort on polytheism’s part to refute as there is consensus even among monotheists that it simply does not hold water.

It is far from an “existing consensus” that the existence of multiple Gods should be excluded from discussions about religion and theology. You may have excluded it from your consideration, but millions have not done so.

Even sillier to bring up a numbers argument. The millions who believe in the true God vastly outnumber polytheists. Aquinas and co presented these arguments to people whose forebears had abandoned belief in multi “gods” as irrational centuries before, and sensible people use them as such, whether they are convinced by them or not.

Please feel free to point out the inherent contradictions.

Also, in your opinion, what criteria does one use to determine if there is “compelling evidence that the revelation is in fact divine?”

The key word is “evidence”. Whether historical, philosophical, archeological, scientific or whatever, there’s plenty of it available to those who are willing to search with open minds for the truth. And no, the fanciful stories made up about the doings of mythical beings at some indeterminate time in the past do not constitute evidence.

 

[Petergee]

You’re welcome to believe that, but as you can’t adduce any evidence to support your assertion, don’t expect anyone to accept it as the truth (as distinct from pretending to believe it because it is convenient). It certainly rules out “divine”. I said they were depicted as superhuman.
Which Catechism did you get that out of? I can’t find it in mine. What you’re saying just boils down to “Catholicism teaches that two things which are logically contradictory cannot both be true”. It does teach that everything that is good is of God, hence anything that is evil is not of God. If you think Catholicism teaches that God is finite, you’ve got a LOT to learn.

 

[KarenNC]

You’re welcome to believe that, but as you can’t adduce any evidence to support your assertion, don’t expect anyone to accept it as the truth (as distinct from pretending to believe it because it is convenient)

It would actually be infinitely more “convenient” for me to have remained within the Christian faith, both in my family and in the society in which I live, which is very heavily and overtly Christian. You may not have the same experience, as I understand there are many places that are very heavily secular, but here in the southern US, we are constantly inundated with Christianity regardless of the ideal of separation of church and state. Being anything other than Christian (and even sometimes just being a different form of Christian) can lead to ostracism at best from many folks.

**It certainly rules out “divine”. I said they were depicted as superhuman. **

So you do not believe that angels are divine, that Mary and the saints are divine?

Which Catechism did you get that out of? I can’t find it in mine. What you’re saying just boils down to “Catholicism teaches that two things which are logically contradictory cannot both be true”. It does teeach that everythingthat is good is of God, hence anything that is evil is not of God. If you think Catholicism teaches that God is finte, you’ve got a LOT to learn.

Actually I got it from extensive conversations on this board. I will grant that it is possible I have been conversing with Catholics who are not 100% up on the accuracy of their dogma.

If anything that is evil is not of God, then that means that where there is evil there is not God and therefore limits on His presence? If God cannot do anything that we see as evil, are there not then limits on His power?

 

[KarenNC]

**Except that I asked you not to refer to The God as “Him/Her”. Just because you choose to “believe in” a bevy of “goddesses” as well as “gods” doesn’t mean you can assert that those who believe in God must believe in a bisexual God to satisfy some imagined cosmic affirmative action program (imposed by whom, I wonder? ). **

Try reading my statement again
“Do you allow divine revelation (by which I mean statements about Him/Herself that are attributed to a God by His/Her followers) to be sufficient evidence for the truth of those statements for anyone other than the Christian God?” If you choose to believe that I am saying your God is bisexual, okay, but I don’t know how you get that from my statement.

**Descending to your level of silliness would be for me to say "Christians believe God is a Trinity, therefore the ancient Greek “gods” and “goddesses” must have each been “trinities”! **

That would truly be absurd, agreed, for there is no evidence of such. That particular bit of mental gymnastics seems reserved to Christians.

** Even sillier to bring up a numbers argument. The millions who believe in the true God vastly outnumber polytheists. **

adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html. I said there was not total consensus, as you claimed. The existence of my Gods does not depend on the number of adherents. I don’t make an argument from numbers for Their existence nor does an argument from numbers constitute convincing evidence for me of monotheism.

The key word is “evidence”. Whether historical, philosophical, archeological, scientific or whatever, there’s plenty of it available to those who are willing to search with open minds for the truth. And no, the fanciful stories made up about the doings of mythical beings at some indeterminate time in the past do not constitute evidence.

Then exactly what, in your mind, does constitute evidence? I am still waiting for you to present the overwhelming rational argument for monotheism that you keep claiming is irrefutable.

 

[Petergee]

You’re welcome to believe that, but as you can’t adduce any evidence to support your assertion, don’t expect anyone to accept it as the truth (as distinct from pretending to believe it because it is convenient)

It would actually be infinitely more “convenient” for me to have remained within the Christian faith, both in my family and in the society in which I live, which is very heavily and overtly Christian. You may not have the same experience, as I understand there are many places that are very heavily secular, but here in the southern US, we are constantly inundated with Christianity regardless of the ideal of separation of church and state. Being anything other than Christian (and even sometimes just being a different form of Christian) can lead to ostracism at best from many folks.

LOL. And I’ll bet you just love the safe and comfortable thrill you get from being “ostracised” by those folks you obviously view as SO intellectually inferior to yourself. What horrible form does this “ostracism” take - feeling “unwelcome” at the church bingo session?

**It certainly rules out “divine”. I said they were depicted as **super****human.

So you do not believe that angels are divine, that Mary and the saints are divine?

Most certainly not!!! You know even less about Catholicism than I thought. I suggest you peruse a Catechism or similar before again presuming to tell us dumb Catholics where we’re hopelessly wrong.

Which Catechism did you get that out of? I can’t find it in mine. What you’re saying just boils down to “Catholicism teaches that two things which are logically contradictory cannot both be true”. It does teeach that everythingthat is good is of God, hence anything that is evil is not of God. If you think Catholicism teaches that God is finte, you’ve got a LOT to learn.

Actually I got it from extensive conversations on this board. I will grant that it is possible I have been conversing with Catholics who are not 100% up on the accuracy of their dogma.

There are a very few oddball “Catholics” among the regulars here, but the vast majority are very solid on the basics of Catholic belief, despite their differences of opinion over many relatively trivial subjects. Trust me, this site is a breath of fresh air compared to the farrago of topsy-turvy “catholic” opinions and “doctrines” presented at most other sites.

If anything that is evil is not of God, then that means that where there is evil there is not God and therefore limits on His presence? If God cannot do anything that we see as evil, are there not then limits on His power?

Certainly not. God gave humans and angels free will to accept or reject Him. He didn’t have to; He chose to, out of love. As a result of some of us exercising free will to turn away from God, evil exists.

 

[Petergee]

**Except that I asked you not to refer to The God as “Him/Her”. Just because you choose to “believe in” a bevy of “goddesses” as well as “gods” doesn’t mean you can assert that those who believe in God must believe in a bisexual God to satisfy some imagined cosmic affirmative action program (imposed by whom, I wonder? ). **

Try reading my statement again
“Do you allow divine revelation (by which I mean statements about Him/Herself that are attributed to a God by His/Her followers) to be sufficient evidence for the truth of those statements for anyone other than the Christian God?” If you choose to believe that I am saying your God is bisexual, okay, but I don’t know how you get that from my statement.

Fair enough, I know you were saying God might just as well be “She” as a “He”. “Bisexual” was merely a silly/catchy word I used to make fun of the silliness of it.

**Descending to your level of silliness would be for me to say "Christians believe God is a Trinity, therefore the ancient Greek “gods” and “goddesses” must have each been “trinities”! **

That would truly be absurd, agreed, for there is no evidence of such. That particular bit of mental gymnastics seems reserved to Christians.

Onlly because it’s the only way we can logically reconcile all of the truths God has taught us about Himself.

** Even sillier to bring up a numbers argument. The millions who believe in the true God vastly outnumber polytheists. **

adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html. I said there was not total consensus, as you claimed. The existence of my Gods does not depend on the number of adherents. I don’t make an argument from numbers for Their existence nor does an argument from numbers constitute convincing evidence for me of monotheism.

I never said it was, I was referring to your belief that my position is undermined by the fact that “millions” disagree with it.

The key word is “evidence”. Whether historical, philosophical, archeological, scientific or whatever, there’s plenty of it available to those who are willing to search with open minds for the truth. And no, the fanciful stories made up about the doings of mythical beings at some indeterminate time in the past do not constitute evidence.

Then exactly what, in your mind, does constitute evidence?

You’d better read what I said again. The whole point is that it’s not just something that’s in my or your or anyone’s mind, but is real and tangible.

I am still waiting for you to present the overwhelming rational argument for monotheism that you keep claiming is irrefutable.

I have not “claimed” this even once, let alone “keep claiming” it.