statistics on the five major world religions

[Marybeloved]

Actually, “worship” is used in contemporary English to refer to either latreia or proskynesis, “adoration” or “veneration”. Both usages are common. From the OED:Worship: Reverence or** veneration** paid to a being or power regarded as supernatural or divine; the action or practice of displaying this by appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies.
So “worship” does, in modern terms, include veneration and reverence. But as long as you agree that “worship”, properly understood, is rightfully due to human saints and Angels, I think we will have reached an agreement.

Ahimsa,

So, according to your definition, worship in modern usage is reverence offered to supernatural or divine beings- Yes, we are agreed- And No, it’s never offered to creatures

So are you saying that the definition of “god” depends upon whether someone is a polytheist or a monotheist? For a polytheist, “god” is part of nature; but for a monotheist, “god” is beyond nature?

I’m stating the obvious, that unless some one is hell bent on twisting truth to justify his/her positions, gods are deities to whom people ascribe divinity, and in monotheism, there is only one such deity/being

Peace.

 

[Ahimsa]

Dear Ahimsa,

Again, you’re just engaging in dishonest polemics here, to my great disappointed. I was really looking forward to discussing Tolkien’s Myth and possible infuences in Shaivism, which I find fascinating.

I’ve explained a gazillion times now. It’s not just that angels are “creatures”, The angels are brothers to humans, equal in standing and veneration as you properly demonstrated, unlike the Vedas through whom Shiva is worshiped. They are not deities.

The devas in Shaivism are also siblings to humans, because both are creations of Shiva. The devas are “worshipped” in the sense of being “venerated”, just like angels are “worshipped” in the sense of being “venerated” in Christianity.

If you want to say that Angels are not deities, because they are brothers to humans and are venerated, then you would also have to say that the devas are not deities because they are siblings to humans and are venerated.

I would have no problem if you wanted to say that the devas are not “deities”; it would just mean that you would have to say that Hinduism (as well many other non-Abrahamic religions) is not polytheistic.

You say properly that this “worship” is given to creatures, which is true, and as explained by me a gazillion times and shown in your illustration of christian worship, these creatures are humans and angels, so you can repeat the false assertions till kingdom come- Angels (unlike Vedas) are equals to humans, not their deities.

Peace

Devas are equal to humans as well; both are created by Shiva, and both are part of the created cosmos.

 

[Marybeloved]

The devas in Shaivism are also siblings to humans, because both are creations of Shiva. The devas are “worshipped” in the sense of being “venerated”, just like angels are “worshipped” in the sense of being “venerated” in Christianity.

If you want to say that Angels are not deities, because they are brothers to humans and are venerated, then you would also have to say that the devas are not deities because they are siblings to humans and are venerated.

I would have no problem if you wanted to say that the devas are not “deities”; it would just mean that you would have to say that Hinduism (as well many other non-Abrahamic religions) is not polytheistic.

Devas are equal to humans as well; both are created by Shiva, and both are part of the created cosmos.

Yes, except that as you already said before, the Supreme being is worshipped through them, making them deities to humans and above them, showing that this “brother” relationship which you falsely apply to vedas and then dishoneslty equate to the realtionship between angels and men in Christianity is a lie insisted upon by you. The angel is no more deity to me as I am to you- clear and simple.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahimsa,

So, according to your definition, worship in modern usage is reverence offered to supernatural or divine beings- Yes, we are agreed- And No, it’s never offered to creatures

Well, “supernatural”, like “god” and “worship”, is another term whose meaning varies depending upon its usage. “Supernatural” could mean “that which transcends the physical world, the world of matter-and-energy” or it could mean “that which transcends the world of created things altogether, whether matter-and-energy or spirit”.

The definition from the OED:
Worship: Reverence or** veneration** paid to a being or power regarded as supernatural or divine; the action or practice of displaying this by appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies.

…doesn’t itself state which definition of supernatural is being used, so either definition of supernatural could fit in that definition of “worship”.

So, would you say that:

(1) “worship”-as-adoration, in Christianity, is only given to the One Ultimate Being (who is “supernatural” because He transcends the world of created things), and is never given to creatures (those beings in the realm of matter-and-energy or in the realm of spirit); and

(2) that “worship”-as-reverence, in Christianity, is given to creatures, like Angels (who are “supernatural” because they exist in a realm that is above the realm of the physical, matter-and-energy, world, but who are not “supernatural” in the sense of being above the created realms altogether)?

 

[Ahimsa]

Yes, except that as you already said before, the Supreme being is worshipped through them, making them deities to humans and above them, showing that this “brother” relationship which you falsely apply to vedas and then dishoneslty equate to the realtionship between angels and men in Christianity is a lie insisted upon by you. The angel is no more deity to me as I am to you- clear and simple.

Where did I say that Shiva is worshipped through the devas?

 

[catharina]

Well, “supernatural”, like “god” and “worship”, is another term whose meaning varies depending upon its usage. **To YOU. ** “Supernatural” could mean “that which transcends the physical world, the world of matter-and-energy” or it could mean “that which transcends the world of created things altogether, whether matter-and-energy or spirit”.

The definition from the OED:
Worship: Reverence or** veneration** paid to a being or power regarded as supernatural or divine; the action or practice of displaying this by appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies.

…doesn’t itself state which definition of supernatural is being used, so either definition of supernatural could fit in that definition of “worship”.

So, would you say that:

(1) “worship”-as-adoration, in Christianity, is only given to the One Ultimate Being (who is “supernatural” because He transcends the world of created things), and is never given to creatures (those beings in the realm of matter-and-energy or in the realm of spirit); and

(2) that “worship”-as-reverence, in Christianity, is given to creatures, like Angels (who are “supernatural” because they exist in a realm that is above the realm of the physical, matter-and-energy, world, but who are not “supernatural” in the sense of being above the created realms altogether)?

Quite simply, the word “worship” is not in use in the Christian faith
in reference to any but Almighty God. Your pretense at other uses
is simply your pretense. Your pretense can NOT change Christian
Theology and your attempts to do so are very insulting.

 

[Marybeloved]

That may be a Christian understanding of monotheism, but it’s not the standard definition. From the Oxford English Dictionary:Monotheism: The doctrine or belief that there is only one God (as opposed to many, as in polytheism).

Buddhism doesn’t worship Brahman.

In Hinduism, Brahman can only be worshipped by means of some form that humans can sense: the Vedas, the Avatars, the Yogas, etc… But that’s also true of even the Abrahamic religions: in Judaism, the Torah is the means by which one worships Adonai; in Christianity, the human/divine form of Jesus; in Islam, it’s the Qur’an. None of these are to be equated with God (except, in Christianity, Jesus Christ, but even then, Christ is “begotten” from the Father, and is a different Person), but they all are “forms” that humans can sense (see, touch, read, etc.), allowing humans to enter into communion with God.

Put a Hindu who is supremely devoted to Shiva, and a Hindu who is supremely devoted to Vishnu, and you’ll see sparks fly. That doesn’t mean that they will kill each other, but each will maintain that Shiva or Vishnu is the Supreme Person/Reality. For Hindus like these, “Brahman” (the divine state totally without form, without shape, without personality) is an inferior manifestation of either Shiva or Vishnu.

This was the post, after which I asked about Hinduism deities and you offered me shaivism as an example. I’m sorry I believe I was confusing the word Deva with what you call here veda.

 

[Ahimsa]

Quite simply, the word “worship” is not in use in the Christian faith
in reference to any but Almighty God.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

 

[catharina]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

Sadly but not surprisingly, you neglected to state the definition
given above the particulars you chose to quote (same link).

"The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, “honour”; from worth, meaning “value”, “dignity”, “price”, and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God."

Such HOMAGE is NOT equivalent to ADORATION.

 

[Ahimsa]

Sadly but not surprisingly, you neglected to state the definition
given above the particulars you chose to quote (same link).

"The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, “honour”; from worth, meaning “value”, “dignity”, “price”, and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God."

Such HOMAGE is NOT equivalent to ADORATION.

Please note that “homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ,” also known as “Adoration,” is the highest of the several “degrees” of Christian worship:
"This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry."

 

[Marybeloved]

Ahimsa,

I said before and I believe that it’s your pantheistic and monist world view that makes you insist, for no reason at all, that the Christian God cannot create different beings and have none of them be any deity or god or have any divine connotations at all. This is why you refused my suggestion to argue for shaivism’s monotheism rather than for Christianity’s polytheim- which is utterly ridiculous, considering Christianity has a single God.

This explanation of shaivism seems to show that this belief is actually monism and not monotheistic-which, I suspect may be why you have this desperate need to ascribe deity to creatures in a monotheistic faith that clearly distinguishes between the divine being and creatures. I read it here gsbkerala.com/hindusam.htm

***A profound system of temple mysticism and an enlightened view of man’s place in the universe as well as Siddha yoga form the basis of Shaivism. The final goal of Shaivism is realizing one’s identity with Shiva in perfect union and non-differentiation (monism) and based on Advaita philosophy. ***

You know you can’t argue for its monotheism because, ultimately it says that all of us, your devas, gods, and siva (and you lied, they have like several which they ascribe to siva’s manifestations) are actually one soul, one true self- So you attack Christianity with false imputations of polytheism. We have only one God on one hand, and all his creatures on the other- one single deity, we are not polytheists and no creature is a deity or god. You find it hard to accept this in this discussion because the religions you sought to compare it with actually believe in only one true reality, which either makes all of us gods or all of us illusions. It cannot be compared to Christianity in any way, and neither can polytheism.

Peace

 

[catharina]

Please note that “homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ,” also known as “Adoration,” is the highest of the several “degrees” of Christian worship:
"This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry."

Again, by generalizing you fail to make your point.
A form of “worship” as familiar to all is thus called LATRIA.
Perhaps you should abandon your Greek pretensions and move on
to Latin or better yet to common English as accepted by all -

except perhaps by a “Jesus Buddhist” whose religion has one adherent.

 

[Marybeloved]

Please note that “homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ,” also known as “Adoration,” is the highest of the several “degrees” of Christian worship:"This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry."

That article begins clearly by defining what it discusses right in the first line. It makes sure that people understand that the word “worship” used here includes all that it discusses including veneration of saints. If worship did not mean adoration to the divine, there would be no need for the clarification. But they recognize that that is how it’s used in the present day, and so clarify it in the context. Still does not prove your lies that Christianity is polytheistic. However “worship” is used, in the context, it does not ascribe deity to angels, which is again what you’re falsely charging and is totally foreign to us. angels are as ‘divine’ as Humans can be (which is not divine at all)- nothing more.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well, “supernatural”, like “god” and “worship”, is another term whose meaning varies depending upon its usage. “Supernatural” could mean “that which transcends the physical world, the world of matter-and-energy” or it could mean “that which transcends the world of created things altogether, whether matter-and-energy or spirit”.

The definition from the OED:Worship: Reverence or** veneration** paid to a being or power regarded as supernatural or divine; the action or practice of displaying this by appropriate acts, rites, or ceremonies.

…doesn’t itself state which definition of supernatural is being used, so either definition of supernatural could fit in that definition of “worship”.

So, would you say that:

(1) “worship”-as-adoration, in Christianity, is only given to the One Ultimate Being (who is “supernatural” because He transcends the world of created things), and is never given to creatures (those beings in the realm of matter-and-energy or in the realm of spirit); and

(2) that “worship”-as-reverence, in Christianity, is given to creatures, like Angels (who are “supernatural” because they exist in a realm that is above the realm of the physical, matter-and-energy, world, but who are not “supernatural” in the sense of being above the created realms altogether)?

I hadn’t seen this. Supernatural means proper to divinity, I already explained this, so your option no. 2 to is rejected, like all your other attempts at forcing Christianity to be what it is not, just to please your whatever-it-is-that-makes-people-lie instinct.

Put as many words in quotes as you’d like. Any one dishonest enough can make words say anything that they want. You cannot change the clear facts that any one who believes in more than a single deity is a polytheist, and that excludes us from your attempt at trying to force reality into a fantasy that intelligent beings that are not human=gods.

 

[Ahimsa]

Ahimsa,

I said before and I believe that it’s your pantheistic and monist world view that makes you insist, for no reason at all, that the Christian God cannot create different beings and have none of them be any deity or god or have any divine connotations at all.

Hi Marybeloved,

My point is quite simple: in order to be a deity/god, as seen in standard definitions of “god”, something must be a “supernatural” person and an object of “worship”. (From the OED, a “god” is “a superhuman person (regarded as masculine…) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind”.)

As seen from The Catholic Encyclopedia, we know that Angels are given a lesser degree of worship than the worship that is given to the One Ultimate Being:
When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration
So, we can say that Angels are “worshipped-because-they-are-venerated”.

Now, are Angels “supernatural persons”? You said, no, because Nature is Creation, and Angels are created beings. OK, but that’s not the only definition of supernatural, and it’s not the dominant definition either. It’s more of a definition limited to Christian theological usage.

Another much more common definition is that supernatural refers to that which is beyond the physical world of energy and matter. From the OED:
That which is above nature; a supernatural realm or system of things; something supernatural.

And what is “nature”? From the OED:
Nature: The creative and regulative power which is conceived of as operating in the material world and as the immediate cause of its phenomena
Now, using this very common definition (and completely acceptable definition) of “supernature”, we can see that Angels – insofar as they exist beyond the physical world of matter and energy – are “supernatural beings”. Perhaps Angels are not supernatural from the perspective of Catholic theology, but common usage of “supernature” does not follow Catholic theology on this issue.

Now, if you want to claim that the OED definition of “god” and “supernature” necessarily implies a Catholic theological definition of “supernature”, then I can’t say anything much further. But I would suggest that the OED definition of these terms need not follow Catholic theological definitions.

So, from a non-Catholic theological perspective, Angels would be seen as “supernatural persons”. And, from a Catholic theological perspective, Angels would be seen as “worshipped-in-terms-of-veneration”. Add these two together and, from a non-Catholic theological perspective, we can see that the “Angel” fits the non-Catholic theological definition of “god”.

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Ahimsa]

***A profound system of temple mysticism and an enlightened view of man’s place in the universe as well as Siddha yoga form the basis of Shaivism. The final goal of Shaivism is realizing one’s identity with Shiva in perfect union and non-differentiation (monism) and based on Advaita philosophy. ***

Different forms of Shaiva exist. Some forms of Shaiva are non-duaist (as you quote); other, equally ancient, if not more ancient, forms of Shaiva maintain the distinction between Shiva and the soul.

 

[catharina]

Hi Marybeloved,

My point is quite simple: in order to be a deity/god, as seen in standard definitions of “god”, something must be a “supernatural” person and an object of “worship”. (From the OED, a “god” is “a superhuman person (regarded as masculine…) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind”.)

As seen from The Catholic Encyclopedia, we know that Angels are given a lesser degree of worship than the worship that is given to the One Ultimate Being:
When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration
So, we can say that Angels are “worshipped-because-they-are-venerated”.

Now, are Angels “supernatural persons”? You said, no, because Nature is Creation, and Angels are created beings. OK, but that’s not the only definition of supernatural, and it’s not the dominant definition either. It’s more of a definition limited to Christian theological usage.

Another much more common definition is that supernatural refers to that which is beyond the physical world of energy and matter. From the OED:
That which is above nature; a supernatural realm or system of things; something supernatural.

And what is “nature”? From the OED:
Nature: The creative and regulative power which is conceived of as operating in the material world and as the immediate cause of its phenomena
Now, using this very common definition (and completely acceptable definition) of “supernature”, we can see that Angels – insofar as they exist beyond the physical world of matter and energy – are “supernatural beings”. Perhaps Angels are not supernatural from the perspective of Catholic theology, but common usage of “supernature” does not follow Catholic theology on this issue.

Now, if you want to claim that the OED definition of “god” and “supernature” necessarily implies a Catholic theological definition of “supernature”, then I can’t say anything much further. But I would suggest that the OED definition of these terms need not follow Catholic theological definitions.

So, from a non-Catholic theological perspective, Angels would be seen as “supernatural persons”. And, from a Catholic theological perspective, Angels would be seen as “worshipped-in-terms-of-veneration”. Add these two together and, from a non-Catholic theological perspective, we can see that the “Angel” fits the non-Catholic theological definition of “god”.

That’s all I’m saying.

Smiley or no smiley, you are on a Catholic website and attempting
to force-feed your inadequate understandings of Catholic Theology into a
mish-mash of your own invention. You can be absolutely certain this will
never happen. As an allowed man of “other religion” on this site (although
yours is unknown to all but you), you must remember that there is a standard
on this site that forbids denigration of the Catholic faith. One has to notice
you are quite close to crossing that line.

 

[Marybeloved]

Different forms of Shaiva exist. Some forms of Shaiva are non-duaist (as you quote); other, equally ancient, if not more ancient, forms of Shaiva maintain the distinction between Shiva and the soul.

Good- Now, All forms of Christianity affirm in no uncertain terms the absolute distinction between God and all his creatures, and ascribe no deity to angels- kapish?

 

[Ahimsa]

Good- Now, All forms of Christianity affirm in no uncertain terms the absolute distinction between God and all his creatures, and ascribe no deity to angels- kapish?

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Marybeloved]

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Of course, not. You’ll decide to perpetuate lies, and I’ll continue to call you out on them.