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. 
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 .
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.
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.
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?
Then why did State Farm try to sell me that insurance policy?
Goddess-worshipping in Ephesus?
I know I’m shocked.
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.
Holy crap Cardea is real. :eek:
As for the rest: 
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.
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.
Except that the poster is clearly in cups, as denoted by the Windsor variant, 1972.
For the same reason they sell cloud insurance.
Only if there is only one true God. If there are several, he should be good to go.
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.”
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.
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!
Irrelevant. We are talking about definitions of terms, not beliefs. A very different subject.
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.
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.
Yeah, but IMHO this is pretty much the point of the analogy.
[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 which are worthy of note.
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.
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.
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?
No. If you don’t accept the premises, it all falls apart.