Christianity is based on the supposed teachings of the god of Abraham. The god of Abraham IS NOT a monotheistic god...not in any way.

So...Christianity is not a monotheistic religion.

The god of Abraham IS NOT a monotheistic god. — Frank Apisa

One of many?

If you want to make Christianity out to be a polytheistic religion, it seems like you'd have more luck with the concepts of God the Father and God the Son, both of whom are straight forward enough. Then there is sainthood and the practice of praying to saints. There is aside from saints in general, Mary, the mother of God. Then there are powerful angels (Michael, Gabriel and maybe Raphael). There is also Satan, the angel with the worst credit rating, but one who is apparently quite active.

I never found the Trinity a very useful concept, and most preachers have difficulty making sense of it to congregations. "It's a mystery" alright.

Unitarian view: there is God. Period.

The contradiction is this:

1. God = Father
2. God = Son
3. God = Holy Spirit
But
4. Father not= Son
5. Son not= Holy Spirit
6. Father not= Holy Spirit

According to 1, 2 and 3 the following should be true:
7. Father = Son = Holy Spirit = God

7 contradicts 4, 5 and 6

I looked up Trinity on Wikipedia. It provided one of the most ponderous and baffling texts I ever read. It relies on some obscure terminology that looks specially created for the purpose. — Jacob-B

The Christians were not the first to have a triple God, and they probably won't be the last. Just consider the Trinity to be a three-person representation of the one and only God.

Every name we give to God illustrates one or more aspects of the one God. So Jesus is God, and so are Thor, Yahweh, Cthulhu, and so on. And if we take three aspects (of God) at one time, and call them "The Trinity", it doesn't really matter, does it?

Maybe you're being too literal? One God can have - or be referred to by - more than one name.

Is Christianity a monotheistic religion? — Jacob-B

You've first got to define monotheism. While that seems like a simple enough concept, it's really more complex than the idea that there is but one god in all of the universe.

Judaism is considered a monotheistic religion, but that should not be thought to mean the ancient Jews did not believe there was but one god in all the universe. They believed there was only one supreme being who had all the power over all the other gods. Yahweh was not a generic name for God, but was the name of the actual entity that ruled supreme over the universe.

Looking at Exodus chapters 7 to 10, which describe the 10 plagues, God proved his superiority over the Egyptian "sorcerers and magicians" which were able to perform the miracles of turning a staff into a snake, the Nile into blood, and were able to bring forth the plague of frogs. They couldn't do all the things Yahweh did though (like create gnats) and Pharaoh finally relented and freed the Jews when the plague of slaying the first born was laid down.

If there were other mini-gods, capable of supernatural powers, then what makes Judaism monotheistic? We can say that within Judaism, there were not epic battles between the Jewish gods like might exist in Greek mythology, and you didn't have different gods with different powers, where one ruled the earth, the other the sea, and another some other realm. The notion of a single most powerful god, whose power went unchecked, who was the undisputed champion of all events, is what makes Judaism monotheistic.

Going back to Christianity, where you have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, what you have are three intentionally obscured concepts that cannot be clearly defined. What we do know is that they all are unified for a common cause, they do not do battle with one another, they aren't each given specific duties or realms to rule over, and they all seem to arise out of the same spiritual essence. Because there are three names and perhaps three non-physical entities, (although Jesus was for a time physical)), you can say the religion appears polytheistic, but, there is something quite different from the Christian landscape than the ancient Greek one, where you had a god over the land and another over the sea who were sometimes at odds with one another. The Christian concept presents the trinity in a unified way, as in they all seem to arise out of one another and they all are directed toward the same purpose and good.

I also don't want to summarize Christianity or Judaism as not having differing views on this issue. I am aware, for instance, that Mormonism might have a different take on this, with their belief in a corporeal God and a belief that the trinity is composed of three truly separate entities. Perhaps they are more truly polytheistic, but I'll leave that to a Mormon theologian to explain better than me. From what I understand, the Mormons might admit to a certain degree of polytheism and do not consider it to be a criticism, but I'll defer if there's someone who knows better.

The ostensible existence of a "trinity" is a good reason to doubt the truth of Christianity. I agree that the doctrine derived from the need to reconcile Jesus' divinity within the context of monotheism. (And although Judaism emerged from polytheism - probably Babylonian, by the 1st century, monotheistic Judaism became dominant).

That said, Christian's can rationalize it, avoiding logical contradiction. They do this by defining the 3 "persons" as being of one essence. One approach is to consider "person" as a rational faculty. Another is to treat it as hylemorphism (form/substance dichotomy: one divine substance with 3 forms).

So, while this doctrine is a good reason to doubt Christianity, the problems are not going to convince any Christian's they're wrong.

this doctrine is a good reason to doubt Christianity — Relativist

It is? Why?

[FYI: I'm not Christian.]

Because it prima facie violates the law of non-contradiction. Justification of belief in the Trinity requires ad hoc metaphysical assumptions that lack objective support: Christians derived their metaphysics from their beliefs, rather than vice versa.

Justification of belief in the Trinity requires ad hoc metaphysical assumptions that lack objective support — Relativist

Have you never considered religions before? A lack of objective support is normal and expected.

Have you never considered religions before? A lack of objective support is normal and expected. — Pattern-chaser

LOL! Indeed I have, and I agree completely.

I like the way St. Patrick explain the trinity. A shamrock has 3 leaves each separate from the other but together they make one.

Haydn was the Father.
Mozart was the Holy Ghost.
Beethoven was the Son.

Thomas Jefferson was the Father.
Aaron Burr was the Holy Ghost.
Alexander Hamilton was the Son.

Max Stirner was the Father.
Kierkegaard was the Holy Ghost.
Nietzsche was the Son.

Can you get it?

Maybe you're being too literal? One God can have - or be referred to by - more than one name — Pattern-chaser

Yes but the issue exists precisely because people take the whole damn thing literally.

If we approach the Trinity less rigorously then it's a non-issue.

If we approach the Trinity less rigorously then it's a non-issue. — TheMadFool

Exactly. So why turn it into one? :chin:

Exactly. So why turn it into one? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I don't know what to make of it. It's probably one of those occasions where something accidentally slips out of someone's mouth and that someone is deemed infallible and you know the rest.

Matters of religion are not easily considered in a literal manner. The whole issue is more about spirituality and the like, not logic and literal truth.

Matters of religion are not easily considered in a literal manner. The whole issue is more about spirituality and the like, not logic and literal truth. — Pattern-chaser

That makes religion too flexible for some people's tastes and also not entirely true given the current science-religion controversies regarding Creation and the theory of evolution and cosmology.

That makes religion too flexible for some people's tastes and also not entirely true given the current science-religion controversies regarding Creation and the theory of evolution and cosmology. — TheMadFool

In my view, as a believer but not a Christian, those believers who oppose science on its own ground - with literal/objective claims, and the like - are mistaken and wrong. God can take care of Herself, and doesn't need zealots proclaiming Her objective existence in the scientific space-time universe without evidence. There is no disagreement between science and religion that cannot be simply resolved by reasonable and fair-thinking people. IMO.

In my view, as a believer but not a Christian, those believers who oppose science on its own ground - with literal/objective claims, and the like - are mistaken and wrong. God can take care of Herself, and doesn't need zealots proclaiming Her objective existence in the scientific space-time universe without evidence. There is no disagreement between science and religion that cannot be simply resolved by reasonable and fair-thinking people. IMO. — Pattern-chaser

I agree but this common ground between science and religion seems to be impossible to find and this is probably due to, as you said, zealots on both sides of the issue.

:up:

There is no disagreement between science and religion that cannot be simply resolved by reasonable and fair-thinking people. IMO. — Pattern-chaser

It depends upon the religion, though. Those who look at the Bible, for instance, as historically accurate will have serious problems making those views compatible with science, particularly with the creation story and the flood story (among others). It's also not clear what the purpose of prayer would be under a scientific model. Other than satisfying psychological needs, it's pretty clear you're not going to be able to arrive at an empirical study that proves prayer works.

If you approach religion from a very abstract view, I'm sure you can make it compatible with science, but such vague religious beliefs (like simply believing in a nebulous higher power) do not usually form the basis for an organized religion. Unless you're further willing to say that those who are part of organized religion are simply not "reasonable and fair thinking people," then I don't you can say that all reasonable and fair thinking people can resolve their religious/scientific conflicts.

Unless you're further willing to say that those who are part of organized religion are simply not "reasonable and fair thinking people" — Hanover

Many are, but some are not. As I said:

In my view [...] those believers who oppose science on its own ground - with literal/objective claims, and the like - are mistaken and wrong. — Pattern-chaser

Religion doesn't cover the same area of thought/culture/life as science does (although the odd overlap does exist). The two are complementary, IMO.

I agree but this common ground between science and religion seems to be impossible to find and this is probably due to, as you said, zealots on both sides of the issue. — TheMadFool

This just defines true blue religious believers pejoratively as zealots. Is it really a zealot who believes that if he prays for his dying friend, his friend may receive divine intervention? I think that's a mainstream belief among believers, but it's obviously not compatible with science. If prayer actually worked, then those results would be published in the New England Journal of Medicine and would become prescribed treatment, right?

This just defines true blue religious believers pejoratively as zealots. — Hanover

I think it was clear from the original text that it includes, er, committed atheists too.

Is it really a zealot who believes that if he prays for his dying friend, his friend may receive divine intervention? I think that's a mainstream belief among believers, but it's obviously not compatible with science. — Hanover

What can science say about prayer? Only that such experiments as have been performed have not detected any effect. But the comfort it gives to believers is not visible to science either. There is no significant contradiction here, unless a believer were to assert that prayer does have a literal and measurable effect on recovery. For there is no evidence for that. ... Today. In the future, who knows? We already know about the placebo effect. Shouldn't prayer have exactly such an effect, in some cases at least? :chin:

What can science say about prayer? Only that such experiments as have been performed have not detected any effect. But the comfort it gives to believers is not visible to science either. There is no significant contradiction here, unless a believer were to assert that prayer does have a literal and measurable effect on recovery. For there is no evidence for that. ... Today. In the future, who knows? We already know about the placebo effect. Shouldn't prayer have exactly such an effect, in some cases at least? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The point is that no study has shown the effectiveness of prayer in offering a cure for the illness. Having cancer and feeling calm about it because of the prayer isn't a cure for the cancer. The placebo effect can always be accounted for using proper methodology.

Consider this:

Group A - 100 sick people are prayed for by 100 people and the sick people are told about it.
Group B - 100 sick people are prayed for by 100 people and the sick people are not told about it.
Group C - 100 sick people are not prayed for.

The results could be used to determine if there were a statistically significant difference among the groups and it controls the placebo effect.

If A and B > C, then prayer works.
If A and B < C, then prayer hurts.
If A > B, but B = C, then the placebo work.
If A = B = C, then prayer doesn't work and there's no placebo effect.
If B > A and C, then prayer works only when you don't tell people about it.

Anyway, you get the picture. Such a study can be done to account for whatever variables you have.

No need. Science will surely tell us that prayer will do no harm, so why not let the believers try? If it works, maybe it's placebo or maybe it's a miracle. And if it doesn't work, as it may well not, nothing has been lost. There's no harm in trying ... alongside conventional medicine, not instead.

I agree that the doctrine derived from the need to reconcile Jesus' divinity within the context of monotheism. — Relativist

I think the rational basis of the Trinity is actually derived from Plato's tripartite soul, and this happened to fit well with the Church dogma, that held Jesus as Son of God. From Wikipedia I notice that the Nicene creed, which established Jesus as Son of God had to be later amended to add the third part, Holy Spirit.

St. Augustine's "On the Trinity" is consistent with Plato's tripartite soul. He speaks of the three parts of the intellect, memory, reason, and will. The intellect, as one thing, is composed of these three parts.

This just defines true blue religious believers pejoratively as zealots. Is it really a zealot who believes that if he prays for his dying friend, his friend may receive divine intervention? I think that's a mainstream belief among believers, but it's obviously not compatible with science. If prayer actually worked, then those results would be published in the New England Journal of Medicine and would become prescribed treatment, right? — Hanover

Not my intention to insult anyone but it does take extreme ''enthusiasm'' to insist that something is true/false AND demand that ALL parties accept it as so. It's these people, who give no leeway to accommodate people of a different hue I'm referring to. Surely such people could be labeled with ''zealot''. Some might prefer ''fanatic''.

it does take extreme ''enthusiasm'' to insist that something is true/false AND demand that ALL parties accept it as so. It's these people, who give no leeway to accommodate people of a different hue I'm referring to. Surely such people could be labelled with ''zealot''. Some might prefer ''fanatic''. — TheMadFool

:grin: Nicely put. :up: :smile: