Who's a monotheist? Probably not you...

Remove all ads!

I saw an interesting interview on the PBS show "Charlie Rose". The man being interviewed was some scholar of Shakespeare and he made an interesting point: Christianity is in fact polytheistic.

Upon reflection, I couldn't agree more.

There is the Holy Trinity; is each 1/3 of a god? The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... But the son, Jesus, is clearly of a separate intelligence from the Father. The Holy Spirit I know nothing about.

Then you have Lucifer: the Anti-Christ. Another separate spiritual intelligence that has free agency to do supernatural things.

And don't forget all the angels...

So my question is, are there any religions that believe in only a single supernatural intelligence?

 

The only things you need to "prove" that Christianity isn't monotheistic are 1) the thesis that Christianity isn't monotheistic and 2) a convenient definition of monotheistic. Being unfamiliar with Christian theology also helps.

Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons of the Holy Trinity, but they aren't anything like 1/3 God each. They are all one essence; they don't come from indepedent sources and they aren't created by Father, unlike e.g. Greek gods created by Zeus. God is one, in three persons.

As for Lucifer, he isn't the evil part of a bipolar construct. It's not manicheism or zoroastrism. Lucifer is a fallen angel, one of the many angels that have been created. Creating angels doesn't preclude monotheism any more than creating humans does.

Next, your definition of supernatural is not something a god goes by or is bound by. You're establishing that there is such a category as natural and supernatural for a supernatural being, but it would be more logical to establish that everything is natural for such a supernatural being, therefore everything created by that being or below it on the ladder of beings would be natural from the point of view of that being.

That kind of reasoning works with the premise that religions are invented and even consciously realised as such by people who follow them. Even if all religions were invented and created by humans, it would still make no sense to hold a religion you know to be of human creation and up to you to define. In short, for it to work, religious people should have the view of an atheist on religion, which isn't the case. Not the same perspective.

To fit your criteria for monotheism, a religion would have to have one deity who has only one aspect and has created a single type of creatures.

 

Christianity is monotheistic because there is only one god (God). Jesus is only his son (demi-god in fact). As Chev posted, you can't divide Holy Trinity.

 

Fully god and equally a god as the Father, but there are still father-son relations and even obedience (dying on the cross as the utmost filial obedience). There's some confusion when people refer to either the Father or God as the Trinity (all persons) as "God" and you can't always tell what's meant.

 

The Unitarians are monotheistic, at least the ones who still profess its original tenets: that Jesus was simply an inspired teacher, and the Holy Ghost a superfluous metaphysical accretion.

Judaiism is certainly monotheistic. Maybe Zoroastrianism, although there are very few of them left these days. Islam, of course, since Mohammad claimed only the status of a Prophet. No others come to mind.

 

Does the label of 'monotheism' actually matter? According to most (good) interpretations, Christianity seems to allow for the existence of other gods and such - so long as you don't worship them - or something...

 

Jehovah Witness is monotheistic.

 

In the Old testament, Moses was given the Commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

This implies that there may be other gods, but they don't matter...

 

The other ones may exist but not be true gods. They may, for example, be daemons passing themselves as divine entities and receiving worship as mentioned in the Bible a couple of times.

 

Judaism is monotheistic now, but certainly has not always been. Originally it was henotheistic - or even polytheistic -, meaning the belief in, and the worship of, several deities, of which one is supreme. More of it here.

To quote a bit of it:

This source has also some views on Christianity and its claim for monotheism.

As for other hints that there are, in the opinion of those that wrote the Bible, indeed several gods:

Taken from here .

The whole thing is interesting, and particularly the part discussing polytheism:

Personally I find these insights truly fascinating; helpful in gaining a new perspective on matters I have taken for granted in the way they are presented to us. So much for face value. In another thread someone (Rotku?) wrote that its good to question things. Cant agree more with him.

Moslems seem to be true monotheists. And in their eyes Christians have at best corrupted the message of the one god - at worst they are polytheists. Depends on who you ask, I guess. The Wahabits (what a strict buch!) in particular have some nasty things to say about Christian religion, idolizing saints in tempels (chapels) and such.

 

Interesting topic. I would have to agree with Chev on this.

Ultimately, christianity really only worships God, the Father. Jesus is what is termed a cultural hero -- he is the way to return to the father. Many do pray to Jesus, but are really using him as envoy or ambassador to help communicate with God. Many Saints and angels are also used as envoys -- think of it as a sympathetic benefactor who can who can either render aid or 'put in a good word with God himself.' The Holy Ghost is a conduit for communication with God.

The view of the Godhead is really different between christian sects. Some believe as I've listed above, others believe they are manifestations of the same being (which would also be monothiestic).

 

Very interesting, and LTN isn't entirely off, it depends on how you view the trinity. The three are all God, all one entity, but at the same time, they are different. When Jesus was on Earth, at least, he was not omnipresent or omnicient, but he was still omnipotent and knew and understood vastly more than any human could. The Bible refers to them seperately, but at the same time, John chapter 1 makes quite clear that they are the same:
"In the beginning, there was the word (Jesus), and the word was with God, and the word was God."
It goes on to explain that Jesus was just as much the creator as the Father was. Theologians have debated for over 1500 years how seperate and how together the trinity is, and whether Christianity should be called monotheistic or polytheistic.
The angels, demons, and the devil (another demon) should not be considered in this discussion as they are not gods and are certainly not worshiped in Christianity.

 

NOG, since what you said in the atheist thread kind of implied you might know a bit of the old languages, do you have any info on the upper two quotes Dendri put up?

 

To be honest I would like to know whether its accurate as well...

 

Those Bible quotes are accurate, I've checked them out. I'm just wondering whether the translation's been botched somewhere down the line in the few thousand years. If the original scripts used those plurals too...

 

Indeed. Got curious now and fetched my Bible (a copy from 1929 btw - havent read Old German in quite a while).

Denn ein großer Gott ist der Herr,
und ein mächtiger König über alle Götter

The lord is a great god
and a powerful king above all gods

But I doubt that this is all due to a loss in translations, given what can be read about the ancient Jews, who believed that Jehova was "assigned" to their people as a patron god - by El iirc. He was the only god that really mattered to them, however not the only one in existence. As far as I know that conviction grew later, after they were defeated by... Nebucadnezar (?) and during their captivity in Babylon. A time when they were surrounded by an alien people and turned strictly inwards, towards their own culture to preserve their identity, rejecting most of what was foreign in the process. Including, I assume, the other gods.

Still, it would be good to know what the old Hebrew scripts have to say to this. Or to hear someone who knows more about it in general.

 

In the Old testament, there were other nations that worshiped other gods. 2 Chronicles 32 deteails this nicely. This is where Sennacherib of the Assyrians invades Israel. When his demands for surrender and tribute/slaves is refused, and theyr faith in God is stated, Sennacherib then tells them of the other places that said that their gods would save them. That never happenned.

Also, the part where Solomon fell (1 Kings 11), one of the things that led to his downfall was that he allowed the worship of other gods to appease his 700 wives and 350 concubines...

Then there was the story of Elijah and the 400 priests of Baal (1 Kings 18). I found that chapter to be quite amusing, with some of the best zingers you'll find in the Bible...

 

I find the Old Testament stories very interesting, and I've read them a lot.

It does indeed seem a shaky theory that the plural forms in Genesis would be just a translation flaw. Still it would be interesting to hear from someone who knows Hebrew.

Also, I think it was the 6th chapter of Genesis where there is a mention of "sons of gods." This somewhat resembles the mythology of ancient Greece.