Christianity Really A Monotheistic Religion?

Beg to differ

An Orthdox Christian can believe that the gods of the pagan religions are real, unless you want to make the argument that Orthodox Christianity does not believe in the existance of angels or demons.

What an Orthodox (or Catholic) Christian would believe is that at least some these “gods” were, in fact, very real beings, but were, in fact, angels, or, more likely, demons that were being erroneously worshipped by their pagan adherants.

In other words, real, but created beings, and therefore not worthy of worship.

They are not actually gods. Therefore, all I have stated still stands. Those who “believe in” them as gods do so in error.

Okey-dokey.

Not what I meant to say, but I can see how you read it that way.

However, in the earliest years, the first century, most of Christianity’s converts were “God Fearing Gentiles,” who were Roman citizens or Greeks who already appreciated, and perhaps even worshiped, Yahweh, but who did not convert to Judaism due to the cultural and dietary requirements. Christianity, offering Yahweh (and Yeshua and the Paraclete, of course) and none of the Jewish requirements, was a big hit among this crowd.

See, I don’t see anything confusing in the development of Christology. It all seems to flow naturally to me, but as someone who buys into it, that’s probably as much a statement to my Christian mindset as it is a validation of early doctrinal development. However, I do not believe for a moment that there was ever an intentional attempt to make divine Jesus in order to appeal to more Gentiles.

[slight hijack]

There’s another requirement: circumcision

I bought my house in a private sale from an Orthodox Rabbi. Real nice fellow. He asked if it would be OK if he removed the Mezuzahs (scrolls attached to door frames), which custom says you should leave for the next Jewish family, but they are quite expensive and we aren’t Jewish. I responded “well, I could convert”. He deadpanned “yes, but it might be quite painful”.

[/slight hijack]

In the Mennonite and Baptist traditions (the two I am familiar with), there is really no attention paid to angels, archangels, various devils, etc. There’s God, who is the trinity. And there is Satan. And that’s about it. We didn’t pray to Mary or anyone other than the Father.

But I will say that it still sounded pantheistic. Jesus is not depicted as just another amorpous acpect of God. Jesus is portrayed as separate, sitting at the right hand of God. Very much a separate entity, even though the literal scripture says otherwise, sort of. I think it might just be because humans need to put a human face on God to help grasp the concept.

If we can agree (at least for the sake of argument) that part of the definition of a god is “worthy of worship”, then Satan and the angels don’t qualify in Christianity. The case of Mary and the saints is interesting. How to define “worship”? It involves prayer, rituals performed for or in front of the entity, supplication, and praise. Although they would deny that they worship saints, RC and Orthodox do most of those things (e.g. lighting candles in front of a picture/statue of the saint).

Worship is more than actions, it is attitude. For those unable to see beyond surface trappings, veneration can be mistaken for the worship. For those with discernment, the two are distinct.

No, two problems here.

First, even if “worthy of worship” is part of the definition of God, is doesn’t follow that everything worthy of worship is God. After all, having one right angle is part of the definition of “square”, but not every figure with one right angle is a square.

But, more to the point, your description “prayer, rituals performed for or in front of the entity, supplication, and praise” does not amount to worship. If it did, you could fairly say that we worship, say, judges in courts, which plainly we don’t.

“Hail Mary, full of Grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus…
Holy Mary, Mother of God (Jesus = God in human form), pray for our/us sinners, now at the hour of our death, Amen.”

Mary is not worshipped, she is asked through prayer for intercession with God on our behalf…just like the saints as well. Just like when I ask friends to pray for my mother who is recovering from breast cancer and they agree to pray on her behalf. Or I ask my friends or family to pray for me should I face or have experienced difficulty in my life (or my family/friend’s lives).
As for the Catholic belief in the Mystery of the Trinitity, we are taught that one God has/is taken three different forms:

God = Jesus Christ = Holy Spirit (One Diety, three separate forms)

Very similar (although not exactly) to:

Ice = Water = Steam (One particular molecule, three separate forms)

<flogging self>

Argh.

Trinity, not Trinitity…

</flogging self>

I humbly suggest that you review your understanding the Hypostases of the Trinity with your parish priest. Perhaps you merely express the matter poorly, but what you write appears to dangerously skirt the error known as “modalism”.

Well, I can’t dispute the logical point here. I should have known I wouldn’t get away with a partial definition. According to my American Heritage dictionary, a god (small g) is “A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshipped by a people.”

worship - “The reverent love and allegiance accorded a deity, idol, or sacred object.” Also, “a set of ceremonies”, etc. That’s not too helpful because it’s circular: a being is god if it is worshipped, and worship is what you do to a god.

This still applies to saints pretty well, though. Saints have supernatural attributes (e.g. can hear your prayers even though they are dead) and powers (can presumably answer prayers, at least in the sense of passing them on to God). They are “believed in”. They are “accorded reverent love an allegiance”.
If you have a better definition, let’s hear it. Same for Dogface: what exactly is the difference in attitude?

One does not supplicate a saint as a master. God is the only Master. One does not offer one’s life to a saint. Only God is worthy of offerings–and even then He’s made it plain that mere material offerings are tiresome and hollow. Let me put it this way:

Would you agree that one cannot fully understand, let’s say “European Culture” without having lived inside it for quite some time? The Orthodox Phronema is similar.

I don’t know- seems to me that the three states of matter isn’t that bad of an analogy, as long as you make it clear that the ice cube, water and steam all exist simultaneously but are all of one essence (water), rather than saying that the same eight ounces of water appears at various times as water, ice and steam.

It seems likely that modalism grew out of humankind’s inadequate attempts to explain the mystery of the Trinity, which is inexplicable in human terms.

I am not Christian, however, my College was and we were required to study at least some amount of it. Also, I have just always had a personal interest, as Christianity has been a powerful force in European history, literature, and art.
From all this, what I gather on the various subjects raised are:

The Trinity
The “trinity” was developed sometime between the middle ages and the renaissance (I can’t remember specifically off the top of my head–but it was definitely after Christianity had become the cola of choice in Europe.)
It was used as a general purpose teaching tool for getting people to understand the different aspects of God. …Similarly as you could use the trinity of Life, Justice, and the American Way, as a method of teaching future generations about the core of What is Superman.
In the case of god, these are God (the big guy, creator of everything, vanquisher of evildoers), Jesus (the god who feels our pain and understands), and the Holy Ghost (the all-pervasive, general spirit of “something” that exists around us always.) These are not intended to refer to separate entities–just to serve as an overview of the basic forms He takes and all the ways in which we should think of Him and respect Him.
At the time of the development of the current Trinity, there were several other competing trinities, but this one was decided upon as being the one which best encapsulated the issue.

God’s Stance on Other Gods
God originally started as a marketting effort among the Jewish people to try and bolster self repect. At the time, the Jewish people were fully under the control of the … (B something…) … peoples, and all of their gods positioned decidedly lower in rank than their overseers. Which made sense, as the Jewish gods were along the lines of The God of the River on the East Side of Town, or the God of That Funky Gunk Between my Toes, while as the Babylonian (ha! remembered it) gods were the God who is the Sun, and the God who is the Moon, and such.
So when someone came up with or discovered God, the creator of all things (who just happened to favor Jews…), it is not hard to imagine that this was very popular among the Jewish people. “Yeah your gods may be the Sun and the Moon and everything, but our god created the Sun and the Moon, so nyah!”

The Old Testament was thus written largely in this light. Even among the Jewish people at the time, there were still several of the old gods floating around, and some belief in the Babylonian panthyon. But if the Jewish people wanted to unite and kick Babylonian tuckus, they needed to very strictly state that the Jewish people are only allowed to worship one god, and all the other ones are just tricksters, not worthy, or simply another form of Him.
So traditional Jewish practice does not negate the existence of other gods, it simply says that you aren’t allowed to concern yourself with them or else.

Later, Jesus simply reiterated the whole thing. Roman gods may exist, and they may be impressive, but God is the big guy, can’t be viewed as subbordinate to any Roman god, and you may only pay any credence to him, or else.

It was probably not until the Catholic church had such extreme power and wanted to position itself as the One and Only that the idea that only one god existed came into existance. A form of snobbery for someone who had reached the top. But previous to that, all of Christian and Jewish history believed in one all-mighty god, and the existence of more minor and irrelevant gods who were created by the big guy for ineffible reasons.

Origins of Satan
Satan does not exist in true Christianity. Or at least this existance is very suspect.
That is to say, Satan has been a wives tale and all purpose boogey man who has been so prevalent for so long, that it is now difficult to disassociate him from Christianity.
Within the Old Testament, there are one or two minor references to some sort of spiteful personage, but these are not terribly clear. They most probably exist as the parables that were inserted into the Bible were probably based on more ancient tales that had been updated and mostly stripped of older, heathen items. But only mostly.
Within the New Testament, there are some references–still mostly vague–that do accept more ideas along the line of some designated evil personage. However, these seem to be based on the same kind of thinking which now gives us the whole Satan mythos–i.e. the simple force that a thousand years of snowballing of this boogeyman character was bound to have.
Again, it was the desire of the Catholic church to hold and control power that really gave the push for the creation and widescale adoption of the idea of a Satanic character. If there was no malignant, organized force in the world, why would you need a benevolent, organized force to exist?
So essentially, Satan was an efficient ruse to continue expanding power and raising tithes.

The Satanic Mythos (or, Is He A God?)
The story of Satan is that he is a fallen angel. By this basis, he should have no power beyond what any other angel has. And as no other angel is considered a god, we thus cannot relegate Satan a god.
However, as Satan is really an outside character to Christianity and thus need not be restrained by the hard letter of the book, it really just depends on what era of the myth you tune into and who is doing the talking.
The original boogeyman character was probably a god. But as that character got changed around and he became, merely, a fallen angel, he ceased being a god. Now that the general concensus is that he was really a special entity that (while originally seeming like he was just an angel) God created with the express purpose of acting as his own nemisis and bestowed with some amount of godlike powers so as to be able to carry out that role, conceivably he could be considered as a god–if that is the way He, in his ineffible ways intended it. That is, the current status is very unclear, but definitely moving towards a godlike status in the public mind.

Wrong. Trinitarian doctrine was around before the Fall of Rome. Read the Canons and Minutes of the first three Ecumenical Councils.

What is this rubbish? This is nonsense. Really, read the Canons and Minutes of the first three Ecumenical Councils.

Go read St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Are you going to claim that that was written in the “Middle Ages”, too?
This message is the greatest load of unmixed codswallop I’ve seen in quite som time. What tiny, miniscule, microscopic, nearly non-existant “study” you have made of Christianity seems to not have taken. Please, hit the books again.

But the hypostases are no just different forms. They are hypostases–distinct instantiations, not merely a transformed single instantiation.

The Father does not become the Son. The Son does not become the Father. The Son does not become the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does no become the Father. The Father does not become the Holy Spirit. All are distinct yet united. They are not merely facets or states.

My knowledge on what the Trinity is and how it came into being comes from what I recall being taught in college. If the dating is inaccurate, I probably misremembered or my teacher did not state a specific time frame and I filled in the missing data without realising I had done so. As to the actual meanings of the three items, I am still relatively certain that this is what I remember being taught–so perhaps my teacher had a very different outlook despite what might have been written within the texts you specify.

Nope. I’m going to claim that I was incorrect in guessing the timeframe at which the St. Paul/Papal empowerment thing really started moving. I had been thinking he was less annoying than I guess he really was.

The only arguments you have made against what I have stated seem to be based on me misjudging dates, and the possibility that my understanding of the Holy Trinity isn’t up to snuff–which is quite possible.
I don’t know that this reduces everything I said to drivel…

If you have a supreme deity and several lesser deities, it would be normal to have different levels of worship for the different levels of deity. I think it is hard to argue for a distinction based on whether or not you make an offering. In some religions, no offerings are made to God/gods. Even in Christianity, do you make offerings to Jesus? To the Holy Spirit? And lighting a candle in front of a picture of a saint is a kind of offering.

Are you saying that the distinction can’t be understood by someone who is not part of the religion? That seems to be an admission that there’s no real difference.