Polytheism illogical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nguirado
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nguirado

Guest
I was discussing polytheism with a friend. I came to the conclusion that several uncreated beings existing simultaneously isn’t contradictory, but that none of them would be omnipotent (omniscient, etc.). Any flaws with that statement?
 
Only one God (ie; omnipotent being) can exist. Omnipotence cannot exist in two entities; that would entail contradiction.
 
Yes, but can many uncreated beings exist that aren’t omnipotent? The subject was Mormonism, but the way, and I originally said that polytheism is illogical.
 
The lack of omnipotence is the lack of perfection. Also, the lack of singularity is the lack of perfection. The imperfect cannot be eternally extant.
 
I always believed proving the existence of Polytheistic (Personal?) Gods should be treated differently from the/a Monotheistic Personal God or a non-personal creator God. I believe the latter two are similar enough to be compared (or are identical). However, I always thought proving the Hindu Gods would be done differently than proving God created living matter, caused it to evolve and gave humans the soul. But, that’s just me :).
 
Yes, but can many uncreated beings exist that aren’t omnipotent?
Yes. It’s logically possible. However, I do not see anybody coming up with any evidence for a pantheon of gods any time soon. You can’t use any of the arguments used for monotheism to come to this conclusion.
 
Yes, but can many uncreated beings exist that aren’t omnipotent? The subject was Mormonism, but the way, and I originally said that polytheism is illogical.
If two gods exist, then they stand in relation to existence. Existence is a single, united entity. You can say that two things exist. You can’t say that two things exists. If two gods exist, they they both stand in relation to the same single reference point by which we say they are both real. The existence referenced remains single and united. Of course, the Christian God is identical with this united existence itself- I AM WHO AM.
 
If two gods exist, then they stand in relation to existence. Existence is a single, united entity. You can say that two things exist. You can’t say that two things exists. If two gods exist, they they both stand in relation to the same single reference point by which we say they are both real. The existence referenced remains single and united. Of course, the Christian God is identical with this united existence itself- I AM WHO AM.
:confused:

Can you explain this more?
 
:confused:

Can you explain this more?
What he means is that a “god” is not “God”. A “god” is a being, an entity, a person. “God”, though, is the very reality of Being, Existence, and Personhood. There can only be One “God” (One Being, One Existence, One Personhood), whereas there can be an infinite number of individual gods.
 
One related subject seems to get little attention. Many Protestants, both of the liberal and evangelical persuasion, are inclined to suspect Catholicism of being a modified form of polytheism.
Code:
 Just as Hindus, for example, pray to different gods for different benefits etc, Catholicism has encouraged that through an emphasis on saints. There is a saint for about every conceivable vocation, condition and place - St. Fiacre for cab drivers and St. Michael for grocers, St. Vitus for epilepsy and St. Swithbert for angina, St. Hedwig for Silesia and St. Devota for Monaco. I've read there about 10,000 of them altogether, most of them associated with fabulous stories of various miracles: physical cures, levitation, apparitions, etc. And more are being canonized all the time.

 Has there been too much emphasis upon saints in the past? Protestants often ask: why go to a 'middleman" (or woman) when God through Christ is so available?
 
:confused:

Can you explain this more?
You can’t have multiple existences. You can’t say that A is real and B is real without saying that both are real. If both are real, then they both partake in that realness- which is undivided. We cannot posit two totally distinct and separate realities- for if they are are real, then they are necessarily related by that realness.

If A has X, and B has X, then A and B are related by virtue of X. If A does not have X, and B does not have X, then they are not related, but then we are not dealing with real things, since X is the possession of realness.
 
One related subject seems to get little attention. Many Protestants, both of the liberal and evangelical persuasion, are inclined to suspect Catholicism of being a modified form of polytheism.
Code:
 Just as Hindus, for example, pray to different gods for different benefits etc, Catholicism has encouraged that through an emphasis on saints. There is a saint for about every conceivable vocation, condition and place - St. Fiacre for cab drivers and St. Michael for grocers, St. Vitus for epilepsy and St. Swithbert for angina, St. Hedwig for Silesia and St. Devota for Monaco. I've read there about 10,000 of them altogether, most of them associated with fabulous stories of various miracles: physical cures, levitation, apparitions, etc. And more are being canonized all the time.

 Has there been too much emphasis upon saints in the past? Protestants often ask: why go to a 'middleman" (or woman) when God through Christ is so available?
Hi Roy. It’s a lot easier to know that there have been people before us, just like us, who have finished the race even in their own vocations. We find it comforting to know that people with jobs and lives similar to ours have been able to follow Christ. The difference is that with the pagans, they pray to their gods and the gods themselves are said to have power, wheres saints only have the power to pray for us and hope for God to do the rest. When you call it going to a middleman, then according to that same logic, when we ask others to pray for us we are going to a middle man. According to the Holy Bible, “The prayer of a just man availeth much.” Saint Paul specifically exhorts us to intercede for each other. Best.
 
The difference is that with the pagans, they pray to their gods and the gods themselves are said to have power…
Actually, in Hinduism, the “gods” are simply manifestations of the One God; so the individual “gods” themselves do not have ultimate Power.
 
The case for polytheism was argued by the Greeks and the Romans. However, even among them there was no Supreme deity, not even Zeus, who was subject to the Fates. In effect, one could appeal from one god to another, and one could try pitting the gods against each other for their favor. But this also means that none was supreme.

Christianity likewise has followed the practice of praying to spirits … the spirits of our saints, none of whom we regard as supreme. We do not imagine these saints warring against each other as the pagan gods did. They are all consumed by the same spirit of love that comes from the same fountainhead of love. All the saints love all of us as we love them all. We and the saints all love God, as God loves us all. This alone make the case for the obvious superiority of Christianity over all the pagan religions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top