# I Pit people who misrepresent Christianity as polytheistic **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 17, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594 "2009-12-17T04:10:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/141 "2009-12-18T00:01:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > …just the way that in all other pantheons, all the gods in them were exactly equal in power and prestige. Are you actully suggesting that, say, Jupiter is/was equal in power and prestige to Cardea, goddess of the door hinge… or was that little wooshing sound not Mercury zipping by. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/142 "2009-12-18T00:09:01Z")
The stance is a byproduct of our educational system teaching us that the primitive religions had lots of gods to explain what our ignorant ancestors could not explain with the science of the day. They had lots and lots of gods. As we got smarter we eliminated gods that science explained away. So the ultimate was one god who represents the unexplainable . Problem is the Christians believe in all kinds of myths and magic. They believe in devils ,angels and saints that can answer prayers. It is not bad that they have a lot of gods if they want them. It is just not honest to dance around the fact . ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/143 "2009-12-18T00:10:23Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Could you elaborate on this anecdote? I think it comes from the prohibition on graven images. The concern was that a Jewish family with a statue like this in their house (even temporarily) might be worshiping it as an idol. Scratching the nose showed a level of disrespect to the potential idol that made it ok, since no one actually worshiping a statue would let it be deformed. We were good friends with this family, and he did the Kohen blessing at my bar mitzvah. I think this shows the influence of religion on even non-devout families. My parents would never have been concerned about this, but I think they would have found it difficult to say no to him. I know there is pretty much of a Mary cult. We took a side trip to Ephesus in Turkey, and one of the other trips offered was to where Mary was supposed to have lived after the death of Jesus. It was marketed almost as a way to visit the home of a goddess. I know the official dogma, but some people seem to go way beyond what is approved. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/144 "2009-12-18T00:13:36Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > I swear I’m not trying to intentionally be post-modernist or obscure. I think I’ve been diving too deeply into Riemannian geometry recently. Aha. But that doesn’t necessarily claim to make a statement about the world, but only a statement about what can be proven if you assume certain postulates. It’s more like a good fantasy story exploring what would happen if we grant the Trinity. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/145 "2009-12-18T00:18:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Quite seriously, the offense probably comes from the fact that it’s percieved as an insult against his One True God. That is, if anyone _else_ is a god too, that makes God less awesome. (Especially if that person is that scumbag Jesus.) To say that the religion is polytheistic is viewed as saying that God has equals - just the way that in all other pantheons, all the gods in them were exactly equal in power and prestige. So when we point out the the religion is, in the bible and in practice, overtly polytheistic, he takes it as a slight against his God. But…but…if it was _God_ who set up his son and some ghost and possibly son’s babymama (if you’re Catholic) as worshippable in the first place, how is it a slight to use the poly- prefix? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/146 "2009-12-18T00:21:27Z")
> [@fandango](#): > > Hindus don’t actually believe that an elephant headed six-armed giant roams the Earth while riding on a mouse Then why did State Farm try to sell me that insurance policy? ---
**Author:** ![Sparky\_the\_Wonder\_Spirit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Sparky\_the\_Wonder\_Spirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky_the_Wonder_Spirit)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/147 "2009-12-18T00:22:06Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I know there is pretty much of a Mary cult. We took a side trip to Ephesus in Turkey, and one of the other trips offered was to where Mary was supposed to have lived after the death of Jesus. It was marketed almost as a way to visit the home of a goddess. I know the official dogma, but some people seem to go way beyond what is approved. [Goddess-worshipping in Ephesus?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Artemis#Ephesian_Artemis) I know I’m shocked.😉 ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/148 "2009-12-18T00:31:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Quite seriously, the offense probably comes from the fact that it’s percieved as an insult against his One True God. That is, if anyone _else_ is a god too, that makes God less awesome. (Especially if that person is that scumbag Jesus.) To say that the religion is polytheistic is viewed as saying that God has equals - just the way that in all other pantheons, all the gods in them were exactly equal in power and prestige. So when we point out the the religion is, in the bible and in practice, overtly polytheistic, he takes it as a slight against his God. > > It’s my experience that a lot of theists take perceived slights against their dieties _very_ personally. If they believe that the Devil will have an ultimate battle with god in the end, what kind of creature would the devil be. To battle god evenly wouldn’t he have to be a god? Otherwise god could just make him disappear. As a matter of fact he should have a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/149 "2009-12-18T00:36:33Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > Are you actully suggesting that, say, Jupiter is/was equal in power and prestige to Cardea, goddess of the door hinge… or was that little wooshing sound not Mercury zipping by. 🙂 Holy crap Cardea is _real_. :eek: As for the rest: 😃 > [@Giraffe](#): > > But…but…if it was _God_ who set up his son and some ghost and possibly son’s babymama (if you’re Catholic) as worshippable in the first place, how is it a slight to use the poly- prefix? See, you’re just not grasping the difference between “awesome”, and “Godawesome”. And that difference is that things that are merely awesome (like those other individuals you mention) are just stinking sacks of partially-undigested bovine fecal matter when compared to God. > [@gonzomax](#): > > If they believe that the Devil will have an ultimate battle with god in the end, what kind of creature would the devil be. To battle god evenly wouldn’t he have to be a god? Otherwise god could just make him disappear. As a matter of fact he should have a long time ago. I’d always heard that God was _letting_ the devil run free, just like you’d let a rabid doberman run wild in your yard full of small children. You know, for laughs! Though you’re right that the variants that seriously state that the Devil is a match for God (as opposed to just being a match for _us_) have an even flimsier claim on monotheism than the _average_ Christian…or at least their label of “no claim at all” is written in larger print. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/150 "2009-12-18T00:36:52Z")
> [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > You could use this exact post over on the Mornington Crescent thread. Except that the poster is clearly in cups, as denoted by the Windsor variant, 1972. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/151 "2009-12-18T00:47:23Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then why did State Farm try to sell me that insurance policy? For the same reason they sell cloud insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/152 "2009-12-18T00:57:45Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Except that the poster is clearly in cups, as denoted by the Windsor variant, 1972. Only if there is only one true God. If there are several, he should be good to go. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/153 "2009-12-18T01:14:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense; I hear people argue over the “real meaning” of all sorts of things besides religion ( "what is ‘right wing’, what is ‘left wing’ " for example ). And if your idea that people should just agree with whatever any particular batch of believers claim is taken seriously, you’d have to expect people being tortured to death for heresy to agree that they deserve it. So no; there’s nothing wrong with outsiders arguing over what you really believe and how it should be defined. Huh? All I’m saying is that, if someone says “I believe X”, you can’t say “No, you really believe Y”. You have no way of knowing that I don’t actually believe X, even if X doesn’t make a lick of sense. If a righty says “I believe in Sarah Palin”, you can’t say “No, you don’t. Since you keep on trying to treat her as legitimate (when she obviously isn’t), it’s clear your real motivation is to make fun of her. You’re promoting her because you know she’ll fail.” > [@](#): > > It’s to be expected because it IS nonsensical. As pointed out in the GD thread, it doesn’t hold up under examination. It’s not “complicated”; it’s self contradictory and papered over with handwaving about “It’s a Mystery! Just have faith!” ## Creationists think evolution is nonsensical. The explanations offered don’t make sense to them. Yet, when they report this, they are told that arguments from incredulity are not valid. Creationists say it is “nonsensical”, others say it is merely complicated. The two concepts are the same thing, viewed from different angles. I have no problem with the idea that Christianity appears polytheistic. I do have a problem if you say _Christians_ are polytheistic. Polytheism is defined as a belief, therefore, saying Christians are polytheistic is saying they believe they are polytheistic. Obviously, they don’t. Also, please remember that I am making frickin’ analogies. No analogy is perfect, as the two things aren’t exactly the same. The analogy is just a tool to get the point across. ---
**Author:** ![ToeJam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@ToeJam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ToeJam)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/154 "2009-12-18T01:26:43Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No analogy is perfect, as the two things aren’t exactly the same. The analogy is just a tool to get the point across. Hey, there’s no need for that, what did it ever do to you? So it was a little pushy trying to get its point across, but that doesn’t mean you have to insult them like that! Some of my best friends are good old fashioned analogies! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/155 "2009-12-18T02:03:28Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Huh? All I’m saying is that, if someone says “I believe X”, you can’t say “No, you really believe Y”. You have no way of knowing that I don’t actually believe X, even if X doesn’t make a lick of sense. > > If a righty says “I believe in Sarah Palin”, you can’t say “No, you don’t. Since you keep on trying to treat her as legitimate (when she obviously isn’t), it’s clear your real motivation is to make fun of her. You’re promoting her because you know she’ll fail.” Irrelevant. We are talking about definitions of terms, not beliefs. A very different subject. > [@BigT](#): > > Creationists think evolution is nonsensical. The explanations offered don’t make sense to them. Yet, when they report this, they are told that arguments from incredulity are not valid. Creationists say it is “nonsensical”, others say it is merely complicated. The two concepts are the same thing, viewed from different angles. Nonsense. First, the basics of evolution aren’t complicated at all; creationists who say they can’t understand it are either extremely stupid, willfully ignorant, or liars. Which is why people arguing against them seldom say “it’s complicated, you just don’t understand”, despite what you say. Plus, there’s a huge amount of evidence showing that evolution is true, whether you understand it or not; unlike theology which has no evidence that there IS anything to understand. If a religious claim makes no sense, there’s no objective reason to assume that there is any reason for that besides it just not making sense, period. You are also conflating incoherent and contradictory with complex. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/156 "2009-12-18T02:40:17Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Creationists think evolution is nonsensical. The explanations offered don’t make sense to them. Yet, when they report this, they are told that arguments from incredulity are not valid. Creationists say it is “nonsensical”, others say it is merely complicated. The two concepts are the same thing, viewed from different angles. But that’s not quite it; you’d need for evolutionists to _ **agree** _ that evolution doesn’t make sense and can’t be understood. They don’t do that – and, frankly, neither do Creationists; they reject the claim as false, but AFAIK they claim it happens to be factually incorrect rather than wrong by definition. > [@](#): > > Also, please remember that I am making frickin’ analogies. No analogy is perfect, as the two things aren’t exactly the same. The analogy is just a tool to get the point across. Yeah, but IMHO this is pretty much the _ **point** _ of the analogy. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/157 "2009-12-18T03:10:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What attack? I’m just pointing out what _I_ believe is a problem with the claim that Christianity is a monotheistic religion-the ignoring of its roots, and the wand-waving about angels, devils and sons of a god not being considered minor gods as they would certainly be called if this were just another ancient religion that no one follows any more. [ul][li] Setting aside this thread, I perceive that the board is significantly more hostile to believers than it was 5 years ago. Do you disagree? I haven’t been a continuous participant in GD (I find it time consuming) so perhaps it’s more obvious to me. Anyway, my question remains: when did the transition occur?[/li] [li]Awkwardly, I have to take issue with the OP at this point. I saw absolutely nothing untoward on the first page of the GD trinity thread. The mono/poly characterization is arguably related to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the point is worthy of serious discussion. [/li] [li]Not to put a fine point in it, **Der** has a high post rate and his attacks on religion are high in heat and low in insight. I think there are some societal trends involved, but he may have shifted the tone here somewhat. As Der believes that religion is an unmitigated evil (if I understand him correctly) this state of affairs should not upset him unduly. But I’m certainly not pinning everything on him (for better or worse): I’m just pointing to another factor. [/ul] [/li][quote=Bryan Ekers] What constitutes a solid theological basis? [/quote] What an excellent GD question, Brother Ekers! I certainly have no expertise on this question, but the atheist and religious studies expert K.L. Noll [had some thoughts on the matter](http://chronicle.com/article/The-Ethics-of-Being-a/47442/?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en) which are worthy of note. > [@KL Noll](#): > > Theology also views itself as an academic discipline, but it does not attempt to advance knowledge. Rather, theologians practice and defend religion. Theology is a set of words about a god; therefore, while theology is one of many objects of investigation for a religion researcher, it is the substance of the scholarship produced by a theologian. > > There is nothing wrong with the practice and defense of religion, but it is not the study of religion. The best theologians are scholars who have immersed themselves in many of the same academic disciplines favored by religion researchers. Like good religion research, good theology is generated by the application of sound reasoning to empirical evidence. But there is a crucial difference. The religion researcher evaluates that evidence from within a tradition of secular, academic “wisdom.” The theologian evaluates the same evidence from within a tradition of sacred, esoteric “wisdom.” The distinction is not trivial and ought to be recognized and honored by religion researchers and theologians alike. That quote aside, methinks sound theology shares many of the characteristics of sound legal opinion. Logic and observation play roles, but so do underlying assumptions. In theology, the assumptions are doctrinal, so the room for rhetorical maneuver is more circumscribed. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/158 "2009-12-18T03:18:42Z")
I think the only real measure of “sound” theology would be internal consistency and a defensible basis in authoritative writings or precepts. I think the analogy to law is a good one (the analogy is especially apt with regards to Rabbinic Judaism), if revealed laws and doctrines are substituted for legislative law. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/159 "2009-12-18T03:31:38Z")
Well, that doesn’t really answer my question regarding solidity. I understand that theological scholars can analyze and debate various competing scriptures, but is there anything “solid” about the subject matter to approach a degree of independent verifiability enjoyed by, say, Pluto’s moon Charon, which only a handful of people have ever directly observed? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594/160 "2009-12-18T04:02:30Z")
No. If you don’t accept the premises, it all falls apart. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-misrepresent-christianity-as-polytheistic/521594.md?page=9)