Global Polytheism?

[Anathema]

That sounds all nice and logical Gunwounds, but your definition of 'god' is simply not the one the Romans, kelts or whatever ancient people believed in.

god = supernatural being that is worshipped

[Acriku]

All a god has to be is a recognized creator. You're making up definitions that hardly anybody would agree with. You're basically setting yourself up to prove your religion, or support it in favor of others. Hell, I wish I could just change the definitions of what I think would favor me in debates. That'd be sweet.

[GUNWOUNDS]

All a god has to be is a recognized creator. You're making up definitions that hardly anybody would agree with. You're basically setting yourself up to prove your religion, or support it in favor of others. Hell, I wish I could just change the definitions of what I think would favor me in debates. That'd be sweet.

@Acriku---> Thats incorrect... The roman gods didnt all create what they represented.... they merely "lorded" over them.  Neptune didnt create the sea.... he merely dwelt within it and ruled it.   So there YOU go making up definitions... ..also i believe YOU were the one calling Jehova a "powerful alien playing with creation and not really a God, who doesnt deserve to be worshipped" ...  so umm i guess you agree with me on some level that a God needs to meet a certain criteria.  I swear you are like an alzheimer's patient sometimes.... how do you forget the stuff you posted a month ago?  I'm not changing any definitions.. i have stood by my definition of a god for the longest time.  I mean what is god?  If a god isnt "God" then it is something ELSE.  God is God becuz you cant call him anything else.  He isnt the creation of another creator... he doesnt rely on something else for His power... this is all very logical.

@Anathema---> a supernatural being that is worshipped could be anything.  So then you could say that Satan Worshippers worship Satan....except... he isnt a god.  He is a fallen angel.  So it doesnt matter if my definition is not what the Romans, celts, etc,  used.... they were wrong and their definitions were poorly thought out.... they also thought that "Bleeding out your Humours" was the definition of "Sound Medical practice".  The point is that people of those times did not think about theology in an intellectual way and only wanted a quick answer to something.  Aka god of dirt, god of wine, god of death, tree god, stone god, etc. Which means any god definition conceived by that system is bound to be fallacious.

@Dante--->  It doesnt matter what someone chooses to believe... yes a person can believe that their god is this or that... but that doesnt mean it cannot be a fallacious mis-labelling.  People are not perfect... so just because someone believes that their god is undead, black, white, whatever .... it doesnt mean it is so, or that a god can be defined in such a way.  Someone can say that they worship earthly tigers.  Does this mean that earthly tigers are gods?  Of course not.  A belief doesnt justify a logical definition.....a logical definition justifies a belief.

Guns

[Dante]

Gods and logical definition are somewhat removed from each other, methinks. If someone chooses to worship tigers as gods (and I mean really worship, not just pretend to) then to them a tiger is a god, and should be respected/feared/loved whatever for their holy being. This makes no more or less sense than worshipping an 'invisible sky wizard.'

I do like that phrase.

In other words, believing something makes it true in the eyes of the believer. Whether it is actually true or not is not important when it comes to gods as they are subjective and nonexistent anyway. And given those circumstances, a god is whatever you want it to be.

[Acriku]

@Acriku---> Thats incorrect... The roman gods didnt all create what they represented.... they merely "lorded" over them.  Neptune didnt create the sea.... he merely dwelt within it and ruled it.  So there YOU go making up definitions... ..also i believe YOU were the one calling Jehova a "powerful alien playing with creation and not really a God, who doesnt deserve to be worshipped" ...  so umm i guess you agree with me on some level that a God needs to meet a certain criteria.  I swear you are like an alzheimer's patient sometimes.... how do you forget the stuff you posted a month ago?

I'd first like to see if that was really a month ago... I can't remember debating about God like that in a long while. but I am forgetful sometimes :P Anyway, yes a god needs to meet a certain criteria, otherwise I could be called god if that was the case. The criteria is very vague, though. And debated, as we see here. I was referring to gods like how deism refers to gods, merely creators and nothing necessarily more. But yet, the roman/greek mythology consists of many stories of creation. Prometheus created a new race of men out of "clay" or other stuff. Zeus created Mount Olympus. However, a lot of things (chaos, the unformed universe especially) were not created but just transformed. But that's beside the point. In any case, some people use the term slightly differently. "The lord, Our god" tells me they're referring to their god as a ruler over them, but also as something else - their creator. Otherwise, it'd be redundant. And then some say that to create something is to rule it. *shrug* Perhaps creator was too specific then - maybe it's just something worshipped.

Oh, and about the Jehovah comment, I believe I was referring to what Jehova could be, or seemed like. Like for instance, for all we know God is merely a very powerful alien that just told people he created shit, and likes to be worshipped and thus Judaism/Christianity/Islam. I was not saying that Jehovah didn't meet the criteria for a god. Now stop it, my mouth is getting full with the words you're putting in there.

@Anathema---> a supernatural being that is worshipped could be anything.  So then you could say that Satan Worshippers worship Satan....except... he isnt a god.  He is a fallen angel.  So it doesnt matter if my definition is not what the Romans used.... they were wrong.... they also thought that "Bleeding" was a sound medical practice too... oh but they were wrong there too.  You cant have logical relativism.

Oh that's right, because some of their practices were wrong, anything they did or thought were wrong. Nice fallacy there gunwounds. Why were they wrong (besides citing other wrongs they had)? Why are you right?

[Acriku]

  I'm not changing any definitions.. i have stood by my definition of a god for the longest time.  I mean what is god?  If a god isnt "God" then it is something ELSE.  God is God becuz you cant call him anything else.  He isnt the creation of another creator... he doesnt rely on something else for His power... this is all very logical.

I'd like to know your definition of logical  ::) And what I meant by changing definitions is that you're taking the definition that is generally agreed upon and changing it to suit your argument (or even making definitions up to suit your argument). People must agree on definitions before they can argue with them.

"God is God because... well just because! that's what he is!" Hmm... you're right guns the logic just shines right through.

What does Satan rely on for his power? God? That kind of brings a different light on the goodness of God doesn't it? What does Neptune rely on for his power to control the oceans? Nothing but himself. What do the angels rely on for their power? If it is God, then how did 1/3 of them revolt?

Also, the roman/greek gods weren't created either, they were born out of chaos which was there from the beginning. To my knowledge.

This isn't very logical, indeed.

[Dante]

The Greek Gods were born of the Titans, who in turn were born of Uranus and Gaia, who I believed emerged from a sea of chaos or something. My memory gets a bit hazy when it comes to the bits before Gaia.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gods and logical definition are somewhat removed from each other, methinks. If someone chooses to worship tigers as gods (and I mean really worship, not just pretend to) then to them a tiger is a god, and should be respected/feared/loved whatever for their holy being. This makes no more or less sense than worshipping an 'invisible sky wizard.'

I do like that phrase.

In other words, believing something makes it true in the eyes of the believer. Whether it is actually true or not is not important when it comes to gods as they are subjective and nonexistent anyway. And given those circumstances, a god is whatever you want it to be.

Actually an invisible sky wizard makes more sense than an earthly tiger for candidate of God.  A belief doesnt justify a logical definition... a logical definition should justify a belief.  An invisible sky wizard is a God becuz he is  all powerful?.. ok i can deal with that.... But an earhtly tiger is a God becuz...... a primitive native worships it?  *Presses the "You're incorrect Buzzer"*

[GUNWOUNDS]

The Greek Gods were born of the Titans, who in turn were born of Uranus and Gaia, who I believed emerged from a sea of chaos or something. My memory gets a bit hazy when it comes to the bits before Gaia.

Then they definately werent Gods.. they were mere children of powerful creatures.... the roman gods were no more godly than biblical angels.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'd like to know your definition of logical  ::) And what I meant by changing definitions is that you're taking the definition that is generally agreed upon and changing it to suit your argument (or even making definitions up to suit your argument). People must agree on definitions before they can argue with them.

"God is God because... well just because! that's what he is!" Hmm... you're right guns the logic just shines right through.

What does Satan rely on for his power? God? That kind of brings a different light on the goodness of God doesn't it? What does Neptune rely on for his power to control the oceans? Nothing but himself. What do the angels rely on for their power? If it is God, then how did 1/3 of them revolt?

Also, the roman/greek gods weren't created either, they were born out of chaos which was there from the beginning. To my knowledge.

This isn't very logical, indeed.

Satan and the angels rely on God for their power... becuz they must work with what God gives them.  God gave them existence... let's say they are made of Tachyon particles.  Well if God never made Tachyon particles then Satan or the angels would never have existed.  In addition, they can only manipulate what GOD creates (mankind, earth, moral situations, etc).  Neptune didnt create the Sea he manipulated the Sea which was created by SOMETHING OR SOMEONE ELSE.

Guns

[Dante]

Why shouldn't children of powerful creatures be gods? These powerful creatures were far from being earthly and all.

Neptune didn't create the sea, no, but one of his ancestors did. Possibly Oceanus, possibly Tethys. Maybe even Uranus or Gaia. The point is that somehow or other, one of the Titans got around to creating the sea. But they were not worshipped as gods.

Actually an invisible sky wizard makes more sense than an earthly tiger for candidate of God.  A belief doesnt justify a logical definition... a logical definition should justify a belief.  An invisible sky wizard is a God becuz he is  all powerful?.. ok i can deal with that.... But an earhtly tiger is a God becuz...... a primitive native worships it?  *Presses the "You're incorrect Buzzer"*

A native might believe that the tiger is all powerful. Or an all powerful being residing in a tiger. Or a god that chooses to manifest as a tiger. Or that tigers just like being tigers in the same way that invisible sky wizards like being invisible. There is nothing to render one belief any more or less valid without applying actual proof. Which coincidentally does not exist.

To repeat my main point, which you conveniently managed to avoid:

In other words, believing something makes it true in the eyes of the believer. Whether it is actually true or not is not important when it comes to gods as they are subjective and nonexistent anyway. And given those circumstances, a god is whatever you want it to be.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Also, why is God reacting to what man did (Adam and Eve disobeying God) as if he didn't know this would happen? From what you describe in the post above, God is nothing more than a really powerful alien (from our perspective) messing with his experiment, with no idea what his experiment will do.

Ok this is what i was referring to.... you basically said that if God didnt have omniscience  (all-knowing) then he is basically a powerful alien toying with his creation.

So then you are saying from your perspective that God needs to be all-knowing.

[Acriku]

Then they definately werent Gods.. they were mere children of powerful creatures.... the roman gods were no more godly than biblical angels.

Powerful children of powerful creatures...

Satan and the angels rely on God for their power... becuz they must work with what God gives them.  God gave them existence... let's say they are made of Tachyon particles.  Well if God never made Tachyon particles then Satan or the angels would never have existed.  In addition, they can only manipulate what GOD creates (mankind, earth, moral situations, etc).  Neptune didnt create the Sea he manipulated the Sea which was created by SOMETHING OR SOMEONE ELSE.

Guns

Hmm... God creates Satan and other angels, who are still much more powerful than human beings. That doesn't sound awfully familiar with the story of Uranus et all giving birth to the titans and the titans giving birth to the gods? Yes it does. Yet you make a distinction that the latter was wrong. Angels are immortal, powerful beings with their own willpower. Sounds like gods to me. But why are they not considered gods by Christians? Because they are not worshipped, perhaps (excluding catholicism, which borderlines polytheism must more closely)?

Ok this is what i was referring to.... you basically said that if God didnt have omniscience  (all-knowing) then he is basically a powerful alien toying with his creation.

So then you are saying from your perspective that God needs to be all-knowing.

From that quote, I did not say that he was not God. He is still God but to us is just a powerful alien messing with us (hence the 'from our persepctive' comment). This also brings up the confusion in saying God vs saying god. The uncapitalized word god is like the deist god, or roman/greek gods. To say God with capital G is to refer to a more specific god, typically used to refer to the Judeo-Christian Islamic god. It would have been different if I said "this god is nothing more than a really powerful alien" rather than "God is nothing more than a really powerful alien." I'm not sure if this makes sense, but I have to go to work now so if there's confusion I can clear it up later tonight.

I might add, that was 6 months ago! An active mind might not hold onto such a statement for half a year (nor remember making it, which you claim was only a month ago). You can't fault me for that.

[GUNWOUNDS]

In other words, believing something makes it true in the eyes of the believer. Whether it is actually true or not is not important when it comes to gods as they are subjective and nonexistent anyway. And given those circumstances, a god is whatever you want it to be.

Why do gods get special privileges? ... A unicorn doesnt exist.. but we all know that a unicorn has a definition... it is a horse with one horn sticking out of its head.  So the statement that "gods dont exist so it doesnt matter if people use incorrect definitions to define them" doesnt make sense to me.

Vampires dont exist but they have specified definitions.  And guess what? Vampires and Unicorns all have definitions that are "just becuz" WIth no logic behind it.  I mean what is so logical about a Vampire getting killed by UV light? none.

But it is very logical to define a god as the greatest possible entity because a perfect being would be perfect in all aspects therefore "it" would have the greatest knowledge (omniscience), it would have the greatest being/presence (omnipresent), it would have the greatest power (omnipotent).  It would hav eno begining and no ending... because... logically... (as acelethal explained ages ago) ... you can only go so far back before the only logical explaination for something is that it had no begining.  So it is very logical for God to have no begining.  And it is logical to have no end... because it something was omnipotent it could perpetuate its existance.

Calling an earthly beast a god becuz a primitive native is unable to explain why it runs faster than them and is stronger than them doesnt not make any sense.  I beleive you can discuss/describe Deity's with logical explanations as i just did above.  A deity would actually be the source of our own reason... (due to having created everything else) and therefore to say that god is outside the realm of all logic is wrong IMO.

Also, one does not have to have "actual proof" in order to render another belief invalid.  Concepts work just fine.  If the concept of the Roman god show inadequacies.... then its safe to denounce it as incapable of being a candidate for true Godship.  If the concept of the Jehova God does however meet criteria then one can safely say that if such a God existed that it would definately be a candidate.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

Powerful children of powerful creatures...

Hmm... God creates Satan and other angels, who are still much more powerful than human beings. That doesn't sound awfully familiar with the story of Uranus et all giving birth to the titans and the titans giving birth to the gods? Yes it does. Yet you make a distinction that the latter was wrong. Angels are immortal, powerful beings with their own willpower. Sounds like gods to me. But why are they not considered gods by Christians? Because they are not worshipped, perhaps (excluding catholicism, which borderlines polytheism must more closely)?

From that quote, I did not say that he was not God. He is still God but to us is just a powerful alien messing with us (hence the 'from our persepctive' comment). This also brings up the confusion in saying God vs saying god. The uncapitalized word god is like the deist god, or roman/greek gods. To say God with capital G is to refer to a more specific god, typically used to refer to the Judeo-Christian Islamic god. It would have been different if I said "this god is nothing more than a really powerful alien" rather than "God is nothing more than a really powerful alien." I'm not sure if this makes sense, but I have to go to work now so if there's confusion I can clear it up later tonight.

I might add, that was 6 months ago! An active mind might not hold onto such a statement for half a year (nor remember making it, which you claim was only a month ago). You can't fault me for that.

Christians dont consider angels gods and refuse to worship them becuz they understand the inadequcies that these beings have.  "Being more powerful than humans" is not the sole criteria for being a god.

And you claim that you forgot something 6 months ago due to having an active mind?  Hmmm I'll have to rememebr that excuse.  Sounds pretty good.  8)

Guns

[Dante]

Why do gods get special privileges? ... A unicorn doesnt exist.. but we all know that a unicorn has a definition... it is a horse with one horn sticking out of its head.  So the statement that "gods done exist so it doesnt matter if people use incorrect definitions to define them" doesnt make sense to me.

Vampires dont exist but they have specified definitions.  And guess what? Vampires and Unicorns all have definitions that are "just becuz" WIth no logic behind it. I mean what is so logical about a Vampire getting killed by UV light? none.

Actually that's a modern addition. Vampire aversion to light at all is only a few hundred years old, specification to UV less than fifty years. Furthermore, there is no exact definition for all vampires. Some drink blood, others 'absorb' energy. Some are handsome/beautiful, while others are hideously deformed. Some have reversed feet. Some fly, others don't. Some transform into mists and control pack animals, others do not.

Nevertheless, I understand where you're coming from. The point was clearer with the unicorn. But the thing is, there is only one possible definition of unicorn to choose. A unicorn can't be a mouse with a horn on its forehead because there is no definition for unicorn that involves mice. No stories, no legends, no paintings, nothing. Just horses. No mice.

Vampires and gods, on the other hand, have all sorts of definitions. So much so that in the case of the latter, they could have no definition at all other than that someone must believe in their holiness. Vampires have a little less leeway. They tend toward immortality and some parasite-like method of survival.

Unicorns are 'just because' in that there is only one thing that they could possibly be. Anything else, and it is not a unicorn. The same rule does not apply to vampires or gods.

But it is very logical to define a god as the greatest possible entity because a perfect being would be perfect in all aspects therefore "it" would have the greatest knowledge (omniscience), it would have the greatest being/presence (omnipresent), it would have the greatest power (omnipotent).  It would hav eno begining and no ending... because... logically... (as acelethal explained ages ago) ... you can only go so far back before the only logical explaination for something is that it had no begining.  So it is very logical for God to have no begining.  And it is logical to have no end... because it something was omnipotent it could perpetuate its existance.

Calling an earthly beast a god becuz a primitive native is unable to explain why it runs faster than them and is stronger than them doesnt not make any sense.  I beleive you can discuss/describe Deity's with logical explanations as i just did above.  A deity would actually be the source of our own reason... (due to having created everything else) and therefore to say that god is outside the realm of all logic is wrong IMO.

Except that whole hypothesis depends rather heavily on any god being perfect. When you stop defining a god as perfect, the whole thing comes tumbling down. Seth was not perfect. He killed Osiris, cut up his body, and threw it all over the world. Yet he was the god of storms. Zeus was not perfect. He womanised, drank, took revenge very seriously, and probably killed his father. Yet he was the leader of the Olypian pantheon. God in the christian sense was not perfect. Too much smiting. Nevertheless, godhood.

And if a god does not need to be perfect, it does not need to be the best at anything. It does not need to know more, do more, be everywhere and nowhere at the same time, be all powerful, etc. Imperfect god. It isn't an oxymoron.

Besides, how does perfection lead to omnipresence anyway? What if perfection is attained through being concentrated in as small an area as possible?

Also, one does not have to have "actual proof" in order to render another belief invalid.  Concepts work just fine.  If the concept of the Roman god show inadequacies.... then its safe to denounce it as incapable of being a candidate for true Godship.  If the concept of the Jehova God does however meet criteria then one can safely say that if such a God existed that it would definately be a candidate.

Guns

Whose criteria? I imagine that the Romans would be quite amused by some of the christian god's attributes. Amused in the sense of fire and lions that is.

Funny how the 'criteria that one must fulfill to be a god' are always prescribed by that god's believers and always match that god.

Edit: Must you keep multi posting? The modify button is there for a reason.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Funny how the 'criteria that one must fulfill to be a god' are always prescribed by that god's believers and always match that god.

Hold on a minute there bud..... let me tell you something... even if i were an agnostic... which at one point i was... the idea of God being omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent   makes total sense to me.  I dont think that way becuz "now I'm a christian" , I have always thought that it made sense for God to have those attributes.  I mean if a god is imperfect and limited then he really doesnt deserve worship.  I mean my parents created me... but i dont worship them... yea they gave me life.. but they are just as imperfect and limited as me and they may deserve some honor for good parenting...but worship?..neh.  Also, it has nothing to do with me being a christian.... for me its just about logic.  I cannot wrap my mind around a god that doesnt know everything, or cannot exist everywhere, or that isnt all powerful....It doesnt seem logical.  In other words He would simply be a "middleman" and the true god that i am looking for is elsewhere.

Guns

[Dante]

It makes sense because you have, I imagine, been raised in an enviroment of some christian influence. Which is a horrible term but let me explain. When I was younger and people talked about 'god' they always meant in the christian sense, and thus god always had the attributes like omnipotence. Nobody ever mentioned Islam, Judaism, or any other viewpoints on god (mainly because there were no muslims, jews, etc around). Even in a decidedly non-religious enviroment at home, at school there were still things like nativity plays, visits from the local churchman of some description, being told not to say "Oh my god," and all that. And at the time it all made sense. God is all powerful, everywhere, all knowing, right.

And I also believed in everything else. Sort of. I believed in just about every ancient pantheon I came across, I think because it also made sense at the time. 'There is a god. Well, why not more than one?' The ancient ones were far more interesting anyway.

I grew out of that after a while.

But I think that a lot of people's viewpoints are heavily influenced by these subtle surroundings. And so when they are eventually introduced to an alternative viewpoint, they are not inclined to accept it due to this subconscious conditioning. You say you were agnostic but your language seems to indicate that this was really just a period of doubt. "I cannot wrap my mind around" says to me that there's something in your head that doesn't want to accept it, regardless of merit or lack of it. "the true god that I am looking for" seems to be the real indicator though. If one sets out from the beginning to find "a true god" then they will reject all polytheistic ideas without even considering them. Actually the phrase "true god" gives me shivers down my spine. It brings to mind all sorts of sinister fanaticisms.

To sum up, it may not necessarily be 'because you're a christian,' (though that is a distinct possibility, even with the constant and annoying misspelling of 'because'). The human mind takes in a lot during the formative years; I'm inclined to think that this laid the groundwork for a mind biased toward christianity, even when not actually practicing.

Of course now I'm doing what I always hate you doing and creating a story about the other side of the argument. Which means that I may be wrong entirely. *Shrug* Not like it matters.

[Anathema]

Gunny,

the whole problem with your argument is that you base it on the modern, christian definition of 'god', whereas for the most part of history it meant something else.

In Roman eyes, 'gods' were simply powerful creatures with human attributes that ruled over the Earth and underworld and people made almost contractual sacrifices to. They acknowledged that these gods were masters over their life and worshipped them to apease them. Other people were less pragmatic then the Romans on religion, but it was generally similar.

To me monotheism is also more logical then polytheism. I could see myself convert to some form of deism...Plato was a deist too, I believe. Christianity however is just a mix of old superstitions with philosophical rationalisations, IMHO.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gunny,

the whole problem with your argument is that you base it on the modern, christian definition of 'god', whereas for the most part of history it meant something else.

In Roman eyes, 'gods' were simply powerful creatures with human attributes that ruled over the Earth and underworld and people made almost contractual sacrifices to. They acknowledged that these gods were masters over their life and worshipped them to apease them. Other people were less pragmatic then the Romans on religion, but it was generally similar.

To me monotheism is also more logical then polytheism. I could see myself convert to some form of deism...Plato was a deist too, I believe. Christianity however is just a mix of old superstitions with philosophical rationalisations, IMHO.

Well atleast you get my point... thats good.  You said the Romans viewed their "gods" as powerful creatures ... the same way we view mutant superheroes  or powerful aliens...basically semantics.  But the thing that gets me is that they didnt worship these things out of the thought of them being a a "god" , they simply worshipped them for being "better" and out of "fear".  This means they would actually worship anyone more powerful than them.  The same way people worshipped pharaoh.  This tells me that they didnt even contemplate what a god's maximum potential was aside from the fact that "its better than me" and they left it at that.  I wonder why people today dont worship Magneto or Wolverine  (same as Hercules or whatever)?  Perhaps because they know that its fiction?  Or because people standing upon the shoulders of great theological thinkers realize that an omnipotent god is the only one that makes sense if there was to be a god in existence?

Guns

[Dante]

Not if there's going to be more than one. If you accept that there will be more than one god then omnipotence no longer makes any sense.

[gunner154]

To be very frank, I think that this discussion proves nothing. But anyway...

... I think the Christian definition of God is based on the premise of omnipotence, which you cannot really prove, and thus you have to assume or base it on faith. At the end of the day, it's not the definition that matters, but what who your god is. Thus there is the difference between god and God, for obvious reasons. Our definition of God is based on that premise of the characteristics that make up God. Yes, if more than one god exists, there is no omnipotence. Thus, to Christians, Zeus and the like can be considered gods, but cannot exist because there's God who is truly the omnipotent/present/scient one. Christians themselves can talk flippantly about all kinds of gods, but at the end of the day, what they believe in is the one true God - the rest are just fiction or incorrect. I don't think Buddha is a god, but others might argue otherwise.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Thus, to Christians, Zeus and the like can be considered gods, but cannot exist because there's God who is truly the omnipotent/present/scient one.

There is a problem with that logic.  Because in the bible many people saw angels and were frightened and bowed down and began to worship.  Then the angel said do not worship me.  So you could say they mistook the angels for God. 

Now using your logic i  could say that angels can be considered gods, but cannot exist because there's God who is truly the omnipotent/present/scient one.

But that statement would be false.  Angels DO exist... even with the existence of an omnipotent God.  The people just mistook the angels for gods and they mistook Zeus and the like for gods as well.

I hope my point is finally coming thru.  Its all mispoken semantics.  The Romans just didnt have a word for Mutant superhero or powerful alien... because those words are only possible with our technologically advanced times, so they just used the generic term "gods".  However, even within their polytheism they had a vague understanding of the need for a "most powerful god"  as in Jupiter or Zeus.  This basically showed that they understood (vaguely) the logic of monotheism, but gave way to their human weakness (and primitive ignorance) of wanting polytheistic religion.

Guns

[gunner154]

Well, at the end of the day, angels are still NOT gods, right? Thus, this debate is still about very surface content. It's just about what's the right terminology and definitions.

[Acriku]

There is a problem with that logic.  Because in the bible many people saw angels and were frightened and bowed down and began to worship.  Then the angel said do not worship me.  So you could say they mistook the angels for God. 

Now using your logic i  could say that angels can be considered gods, but cannot exist because there's God who is truly the omnipotent/present/scient one.

But that statement would be false.  Angels DO exist... even with the existence of an omnipotent God.  The people just mistook the angels for gods and they mistook Zeus and the like for gods as well.

I hope my point is finally coming thru.  Its all mispoken semantics.  The Romans just didnt have a word for Mutant superhero or powerful alien... because those words are only possible with our technologically advanced times, so they just used the generic term "gods".  However, even within their polytheism they had a vague understanding of the need for a "most powerful god"  as in Jupiter or Zeus.  This basically showed that they understood (vaguely) the logic of monotheism, but gave way to their human weakness (and primitive ignorance) of wanting polytheistic religion.

Guns

This is some of the most arrogant Christian statements I've seen yet by you guns. I've been away for a few days out of town (work) and I come back and what do I see? Guns denouncing the Romans//Greeks for their weakness and primitive ignorance, all the while vaguely understanding the 'logic of monotheism'. You're just another zealot believing your religion to be superior to all, and your thinking to be superior to that of 'primitive' humans in the past. Yet the greeks have laid the foundations of philosophy to be studied for millenia, and the fact that we haven't improved much in that area leads a rational person (not a zealot) to believe that they were not primitive nor ignorant.