statistics on the five major world religions

[Marybeloved]

Hey, Ahimsa,

I think I understand what you mean, a little better. I wonder if you’ve read anything of J.R.Tolkien’s myth of middle-Earth? I always thought it was very beautiful. Would the Shaiva vedas be equal to Tolkien’s “Valar” and Shiva be equal to “Iluvatar”?

As far as angels, I said we do pray (here meaning communication not worship) to specific angels, like the archangels St. Michael (especially against the Devil) St. Gabriel and St. Raphael and the Guardian angels as they are closest to us and we believe they accompany us all our lives, our companions. But I’m sure I’ve read a vatican warning about some devotions to angels that I’ve never read with regard to Human Saints. Perhaps I misunderstood, but generally, I know we pray to the guardians who are so close to us and the three archangels that have been “visibly” involved with human history and salvation. All the angels are involved with our world, because God is, and they live for him, but in a hidden way, unlike these. Other than these three and the guardians I don’t know of any instance of praying to angels, unless in communion terms like “All angels and saints, pray for us”. I believe the Vatican warning was against people consecrating themselves to angels us we do to Christ, or to his Mother, which are always legitimate, but not so for angels. There was danger that such consecration could invite the evil angels to the person and is dangerous.

 

[catharina]

Hi Marybeloved,

I assume by “they” that you mean the Hindus, in which case I will refer to a specific Hindu tradition called Shaiva. Shaivas are those who believe that Shiva is the One Supreme Divine Person. At the same time, Shiva is the Ultimate Reality. So, Shaivas would say that both monotheism and monism apply to how they conceptualize Shiva.

In regards to the “multiple deities”, in Shaivism, these “multiple deities” (or “devas”) are not eternal, not all-powerful – they are simply spiritual beings with a large degree of power and knowledge, but they are not Shiva Himself. As such, these “deities” are analogous to the “angels” of Christian tradition – angels being also spiritual beings with a large degree of power and knowledge, without being God Himself. So, from a Shaiva perspective, an “angel” would be seen as a “deity”, a “deva” – and a deva is simply a spiritual being of significant power and knowledge; from a Shaiva perspective, any religion that believes in multiple angels is a “poly-devic”, or “poly-theistic”, religion.

I’m basically just making a single point: whether a religion is “monotheistic” or “polytheistic” depends upon how a person is defining, or conceptualizing, the “theos” in those two terms. 1. Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Person” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. **2. **Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual being”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva are “polytheistic”.

**1. Wrong. Christianity accepts GOD as one Divine BEING, not person.
2. Wrong. Christianity accepts God as the only one Divine BEING.

For the sake of all, please cease and desist in your efforts to describe Christian beliefs.**

“Monism”, as defined by the OED: “Any theory, or system of thought or belief, that assumes a single ultimate principle, being, force, etc., rather than more than one.” The terms “principle”, “being”, “force” can be interpreted in many different ways, so this definition doesn’t tell us a whole lot, but it does point in the right direction. One can imagine that there might be a religion that says that “there is a single ultimate principle”, while at the same time saying that “there are multiple forces that exist in the cosmos”. Such a religion would be monistic in one way, non-monistic in another. I would suggest that Christianity teaches that “there is a single ultimate principle”, and that principle is love (“God is love”, e.g.). As such, Christianity can be seen to be monistic, at least on the level of principle.

 

[catharina]

Yes, that is a very common perspective.

It is the universal CHRISTIAN perspective.

 

[Ahimsa]

Hey, Ahimsa,

I think I understand what you mean, a little better. I wonder if you’ve read anything of J.R.Tolkien’s myth of middle-Earth? I always thought it was very beautiful. Would the Shaiva vedas be equal to Tolkien’s “Valar” and Shiva be equal to “Iluvatar”?

Hi Marybeloved,

Yes, Shiva would be analogous to Iluvatar; and the devas analogous to the Ainur (or Valar).

 

[catharina]

The definition of “deity” can include the deity, as a very powerful spiritual being, as itself being a creation of the Ultimate Divine Person. As such, a deity is a created creature, which is true of both devas (who originate from Shiva) and Angels (who originate from God).

Christianity accepts One Divine Being, the Supreme Being Who
made all things and keeps them in existence. Christianity also
accepts that there are Three Persons in this One God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Ahimsa]

Christianity accepts One Divine Being, the Supreme Being Who
made all things and keeps them in existence. Christianity also
accepts that there are Three Persons in this One God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

When I say that Christianity teaches “One Divine Person”, I’m not using “Person” in the technical sense as defined in Christian Trinitarian dogma, because, obviously, in Christian terms, God is Three Persons, One Divine Being.

So, let me rephrase this statement:
Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Person” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. **2. **Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual being”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva are “polytheistic”.
…into this statement:
Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Being” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. **2. **Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual individual entity”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva can be described as “polytheistic”.

 

[catharina]

Christianity accepts One Divine Being, the Supreme Being Who
made all things and keeps them in existence. Christianity also
accepts that there are Three Persons in this One God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

When I say that Christianity teaches “One Divine Person”, I’m not using “Person” in the technical sense as defined in Christian Trinitarian dogma, because, obviously, in Christian terms, God is Three Persons, One Divine Being.

So, let me rephrase this statement:
Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Person” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. **2. **Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual being”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva are “polytheistic”.
…into this statement:
Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Being” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. **2. **Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual individual entity”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva can be described as “polytheistic”.

Insufficient.

One can not hope to “teach” Christian theology
from the perspective of a “Jesus Buddhist” - since
“Jesus Buddhist” is an invented and haphazard term at best.

 

[Ahimsa]

Insufficient.

How, exactly?

 

[catharina]

Insufficient.

One can not hope to “teach” Christian theology
from the perspective of a “Jesus Buddhist” - since
“Jesus Buddhist” is an invented and haphazard term at best.

How, exactly?

Your original, revised:

“Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Being” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. 2. Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual individual entity”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva can be described as “polytheistic”.”

There is not and can be no “a very powerful…”
as for Christians this is a singlar Being, not
a being among many other like entities.

There are NO other like beings.

 

[Ahimsa]

Your original, revised:

“Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “the One Divine Being” – in which case, Christianity and Shaiva are “monotheistic”. 2. Sometimes a person defines “theos” to mean “a very powerful and knowledgable spiritual individual entity”, in which case Christianity and Shaiva can be described as “polytheistic”.”

There is not and can be no “a very powerful…”
as for Christians this is a singlar Being, not
a being among many other like entities.

Aren’t Angels “very powerful and knowledgable spiritual individual entities”?

 

[catharina]

Aren’t Angels “very powerful and knowledgable spiritual individual entities”?

If you attempting to draw your parrellel to name Christianity
as a polytheistic religion, you’ve failed again.

Angels are CREATED beings.
The singular Divinity, Almighty God, is NOT CREATED.

By definition, Christianity, Judaism and Islam
exist, each as the antithesis of polytheism. No
similarity can be supported re polytheism (Hindu
beliefs) and Christianity. There is no similarity
outsiode of you own imagination, the imagination
that “created” your own “religion” as Jesus Buddhist.

 

[Holly3278]

Belief in Christ is also found among Muslims, and many Hindus and Buddhists as well.

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but they don’t believe He was the Son of God which He was and is. That is where they get their belief wrong about Jesus Christ. As for what Hindus and Buddhists believe about Him, I don’t know but I doubt they believe He is the Son of God. If they did believe He is the Son of God they would be Christians.

 

[Ahimsa]

If you attempting to draw your parrellel to name Christianity
as a polytheistic religion, you’ve failed again.

Angels are CREATED beings.
The singular Divinity, Almighty God, is NOT CREATED.

Hindu devas are created beings, too.
In fact, most of the Greek and Roman deities were created (or born), as well; and yet, we call them “gods”.
And we know that Angels are created beings.

So, if all of these are created, but powerful, spiritual beings, they all deserve the label – from an outsider, objective perspective – of deity, or theos.

But, I’m not trying to argue that you must start calling Christianity “polytheistic”, only that, from the perspective of an outsider looking in, Christianity, Hinduism, or any other religion that teaches the existence of powerful, spiritual beings who were created by the Ultimate Divine Being, can be viewed as both “polytheistic” as well as “monotheistic”.

 

[Ahimsa]

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but they don’t believe He was the Son of God which He was and is. That is where they get their belief wrong about Jesus Christ. As for what Hindus and Buddhists believe about Him, I don’t know but I doubt they believe He is the Son of God. If they did believe He is the Son of God they would be Christians.

Sure, different religions believe different things about Jesus, but to say that they don’t believe in Jesus at all, that they don’t view Him as somehow connected to Divinity, is inaccurate.

 

[catharina]

Hindu devas are created beings, too.
In fact, most of the Greek and Roman deities were created (or born), as well; and yet, we call them “gods”.
And we know that Angels are created beings.

So, if all of these are created, but powerful, spiritual beings, they all deserve the label – from an outsider, objective perspective – of deity, or theos.

But, I’m not trying to argue that you must start calling Christianity “polytheistic”, only that, from the perspective of an outsider looking in, Christianity, Hinduism, or any other religion that teaches the existence of powerful, spiritual beings who were created by the Ultimate Divine Being, can be viewed as both “polytheistic” as well as “monotheistic”.

… and your opinion as a “Jesus Buddhist” is your opinion.

Many “outsiders looking in” can see that the three major monotheistic
religions view God as ONE, not as One among many. IOW, suit yourself.
You’ll understand that Christians, Jews and Moslems disagree with you.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hindu devas are created beings, too.
In fact, most of the Greek and Roman deities were created (or born), as well; and yet, we call them “gods”.
And we know that Angels are created beings.

So, if all of these are created, but powerful, spiritual beings, they all deserve the label – from an outsider, objective perspective – of deity, or theos.

But, I’m not trying to argue that you must start calling Christianity “polytheistic”, only that, from the perspective of an outsider looking in, Christianity, Hinduism, or any other religion that teaches the existence of powerful, spiritual beings who were created by the Ultimate Divine Being, can be viewed as both “polytheistic” as well as “monotheistic”.

Hallo, Ahimsa,

I believe that it would be better if you tried to make the argument for Shaivism as another monotheistic religion, if this is really true, than to make the opposite claim that the angels make Christianity or any other faiths that believes in these beings (both Judaism and Islam) polytheistic. Monotheistic and polytheistic are opposite terms, they really cannot be combined in a single religion or belief system, and they are used for this very purpose of distinguishing between them. Otherwise, the terms make no sense in comparative religions discussions.

I’m also not certain that any belief in other kinds of intelligent creatures besides our selves, makes a religion polytheistic. Polytheism is belief in multiple gods or more than one God. The angels are not gods, not by any understanding anywhere in Christianity, or Judaism. So you must understand the gut-wrenching reaction that such a statement (that belief in the existence of other intelligent creatures given a superior nature to human nature is polytheism ) incites in Catholics.

The angels are simply acknowledgments of God’s power and sovereign freedom to create many kinds of beings. While they have vastly superior natures by virtue of being purely spiritual beings, and they are just too powerful and beautiful to imagine, some more removed from us by their superior form than others, in terms of nature (The hierarchy or nine choirs) and with intelligence that could never by any means be compared with ours, they are not gods, not by any definition. We don’t have to go through them to worship God, so they are by no means necessary for human relationships with God. I don’t want to risk saying something offensive about the angels in my striving to show you that they are not by any means at all divine, this would approach blasphemy/sacrilege too closely . Its treading on dangerous ground as I would fear blaspheming God’s Mother, St. Joseph or the Saints. But of course they are what God has made them, the highest “form of nature” or beings among creatures as far as we know. They are not divine, not gods.

Their own superiority in nature, however, is dwarfed by what I could call human superiority “in privilege”. You see, God did not become an angel, but he became a man. So humans boast God’s real participation as a member of their species and the angels can’t. It is said that if the angels were capable of envy, they would be jealous of human ability to suffer for love of God and thereby being perfectly conformed to their Lord, Christ (the angels know no suffering properly as we do), and they would envy the Holy Eucharist, that humans “eat” God… Of course, the angels were already tested and passed (some fell) and are enjoying their version of “heaven”. They are perfectly holy, no sin or imperfection, and absolutely incapable of envy or any such thing.

So again, it might be a more respectful approach when speaking with monotheists not to bring up ideas of multiple gods/deities but keep in their understanding of a single divine being, one God, and creatures who by virtue of being creatures cannot be gods or receive worship.

Peace.

 

[Ahimsa]

Monotheistic and polytheistic are opposite terms…

Hi Marybeloved,

“Monotheism” and “polytheism” would be opposite terms if the “theos” referred to in both, pointed to the same thing. If the “theos” in both terms meant “the One Ultimate Being”, then the two terms would be opposite. But, the “theos” in “polytheism” – by definition – cannot refer to the One Ultimate Being, because there can be only one Such Being, not many. So, the “theos” is both terms must refer to different types of “theoi”.

The “theos” in “monotheism” most often refers to the One Ultimate Being. That is pretty clear.

The “theos” referred to in “polytheism”, however, does not refer to the One Ultimate Being. It refers, instead, to a powerful and knowledgable spiritual entity, of which there can be many. For instance, the ancient Greek deities were not “Ultimate Beings”; they were powerful spiritual entities that exhibited limitations of various sorts (e.g., Greek deities were born from other Greek deities).

And not all of these Greek deities were necessarily “worshipped” at any one time, by any one ancient Greek. So, a deity need not be actively worshipped to be considered a deity. It simply needs to exist (or, at least, believed to exist). And “worship”, in these cases, is often really simply a form of veneration.

I would actually argue that “polytheism” itself is a useless term, because (1) all major religions teach the existence of several/many powerful spiritual entities that are not equated to the One Ultimate Being; and, more importantly, (2) “polytheism” has such a negative connotation (as you rightly observed), due to its use as a pejorative term directed towards “pagans” that using the term creates more consternation than understanding. I would support simply doing away with the term “polytheism” completely as non-informative and prejudicial.

 

[Marybeloved]

Ahimsa,

I’ve just googled the words “polytheism definition” and virtually all the dictionaries define this as the belief in and worship of more than one god. I think perhaps you may be the one applying a subjective meaning to the term. Contrary to what you assert, it’s not the belief that there are other intelligent creatures besides humans, whose nature is of a higher order than humans, but who are nonetheless unambiguosly understood to be creatures, with absolutely no connotations of the divine whatsoever.

Such reasoning on your part is I believe consequent of having a pantheistic or monist world view. Because it seems that you’re saying “If others exist besides God and humans, then you have polytheism” It’s not true!! If the existence of angels means polytheism, then the existence of humans would mean the same. Because angels are simply a different class of creatures than humans, No more divine than Mother Teresa or Pope John Paul II or any other saints in heaven! I just want you to understand that in Christian theology, calling them deities or gods is no different than calling Mother Teresa a goddess- That’s why it’s completely unacceptable, no matter how you frame it.

I showed you that they are not looked at in any more special way than the human saints, as those who have “won the race”, passed the test and live with God in heaven; Brothers in the exact same place as we, called to chose God or reject him, and receive the same punishments and rewards as we.

Imagine if we discovered that God created another world we didn’t know about, in a galaxy far far away (no pun intended) or another kind of universe and those aliens each have a 1000 IQ and can do stuff we can’t do, like Mutants in x-men. To us, these people would be in the exact same place as us with regard to God. Their superior powers would not make them deities in any way, nor would we need them to relate to God. Those who rejected God among them would be as damned as the humans who do so, those who loved God would be saints. If we found another one in a galaxy even further away (ok, its intended this time) who were slower than us, say like 12 year olds, with little ability to achieve as much as humans, but who could still know God in a limited way and chose to love or reject him, same deal! We humans would not be deities to them and they would not need us in their relationship with God. This is what I’m trying to get you to see. Angels are like those aliens, not like the deities of the polytheistic religions, just because they have a higher being.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahimsa,

I’ve just googled the words “polytheism definition” and virtually all the dictionaries define this as the belief in and worship of more than one god.

And what are the definitions of “god”?

 

[Marybeloved]

Dear Ahimsa,

I’m afraid that a similar search for “god” yields the same results as people here understand. For example, from these definitions (please read this collection of definitions- I cannot reproduce the entire page here) thefreedictionary.com/god

It seems to me that gods, especially as illustrated from the different polytheistic religions are super-natural beings who control some aspect of the world and are worshipped, especially with regards to those aspects- god of fertility, god of rain etc. Now if I combine this with the definition of polytheism that also says worship of more than one god, it’s clear to me that Christianity can in no way be said to be polytheistic at all based on angels! It would be a fairer argument if we were accused of polytheism based on the Blessed Trinity who are all divine persons than angels-It would be most definitely false, but certainly more understandable than the angels.

And please respond to my explanations of the christian concepts of angels through my illustrations above with regard to our human saints and other hypothetical non-human beings. Did you get the difference I was underscoring? We are not to lower beings, deities or gods, and neither are the angels gods to us- this was my point.