And if, while thus praying, he wants to make absolutely clear that his will is separate from the Father he’s praying to – hey, who are you to dispute him? Why not take him seriously?
I’m fine with a God who incarnates himself. I’m fine with a God who prays to himself. But a god who prays to someone with a separate will isn’t like a god who asks himself why he’s forsaken himself, which is beyond weird; it’s more like a god who asks another god why he’s been forsaken, as per a nice clean polytheism.
Son of said God is no more a God than a mule is a horse or donkey.
Angels are not God, anymore than VPs are Presidents.
Though frankly we are arguing over definitions. There are definitional systems that are consistent with a range of characterizations of Christianity. I don’t have a problem adopting the generally used one.
In other words, South Park did the usual thing of bashing atheists and you think that qualifies as a meaningful criticism. Of course they bashed atheism in a Christian country. The surprising thing would be if they had showed a future where atheism made the world better; THAT would have been daring. Not “Atheism bashing session #54392”.
I respect your point of view. I don’t agree. That doesn’t mean I don’t like you or respect you. Yes, I’m scolding people who mock the religions of others. It makes the world a worse place. So I scold people for it because it creates a lot of nasty friction in the world. That doesn’t mean you are a bad person. Your views on religion are because you want the world to be better. That is a positive thing. But the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” doesn’t require a belief in hell to understand that the best of intentions cannot prevent wrong . The world is not black and white. Treating each other well is the best that people have.
Pointing out that Christianity is a polytheism in all but name isn’t mockery. And mockery of religion is something we could use a lot more of; religion gets far, far too much respect, not too little.
But you aren’t. You are scolding people for daring to have their own opinion; not for mocking religion. You are demonstrating that it isn’t mockery of religion that causes friction; it is religion itself that causes the friction. Religion produces artificial divisions, it encourages tribalism and hatred and contempt for your fellow human beings. It demands respect, without ever being worthy of it.
I don’t have a criticism of atheism per se. Iti s a perfectly understandable (and logical) way to see the world. But I don’t see it as a religion. None of the atheists I know personally are about spreading it. I am aware from the internet that there are people like you who want to spread the word on atheism. It’s not for me anymore than my beliefs are for you.
I’m going to assume by “you guys” you aren’t referring to me. I did not participate in that thread, nor do I make a habit of making snide jokes at the expense of the religious. As atheists go, I’m sure I fall into the “Uncle Tom” category as far as some of my more militant brethren are concerned.
But that aside, while rudeness for the sake of being rude isn’t something I respect here or elsewhere, arguing that Christianity can be defined as polytheistic is in no way rude in of itself. If you are honestly getting angry over someone just putting forward that idea in Great Debates of all places, you are far to thin-skinned to be participating in that forum. Calling Christians polytheists may be factually wrong depending on what argument you buy, but it is not inherently insulting. Unless you think there is something intrinsically wrong or lesser about being a polytheist, in which case you are the one being bigoted or intolerant.
We’ve had discussions before over whether, say, Hinduism or Zoroastrianism are monotheistic, henotheistic or polytheistic. This is no different.
Oh, like Judiasm? Or Islam? Those are generally considered to be monotheistic religions, yet Satan plays a role in each of them. So, it seems to me that, with respect, the unusual definition is the one that you are adopting. That’s ok: in rhetoric we only need to be clear about our usage.
Now arguably Christians worship Jesus and some may worship Mary. Insofar as Jesus is concerned - well that’s the doctrine of the trinity: it’s complicated and mysterious. And I’ll leave it to the Jesuits to explain Mary.
Why, in certain religious circles, is a mystery something to be savored and not solved?
It’s like y’all actually take pride in the fact that you can’t figure something out.
Guys, the issue is quite simple. The real argument is who gets to decide what a religion actually believes? The followers, or their opponents? In any other context, the answer would be obvious. But, for some reason, religion is different. Everyone knows what everyone else really thinks.
The Trinity is defined by those who came up with idea as being inherently monotheistic. The whole concept is that it appears to be polytheistic, but it really isn’t. Various explanations have been offered for how this work, from the Apostolic “All three are just names of one person” to the Traditional “Three aspects of the same person” to the Lewisian “God is so big that we can’t describe him as only one person.”
Of course, since it is complicated, other belief systems are going to attack it as being nonsensical. They are going to deny the concept of the Trinity and say that Christianity is polytheistic. This is to be expected.
It seems the OP expects people to be polite in regard to religious beliefs. This is what I generally experience in real life. But this is The Straight Dope Message Board. Politeness is secondary to trying to eradicate ignorance. If we think you are wrong, we’re not going to be silent about it. No amount of whining will change that.
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.
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!”