Board index ‹ God

[One fish Bluefish]

I’m an atheist. As I understand it, the devil, angels, demons, and the heavenly hosts talked about in revalation are Demigods by definition, but Christians don’t seem to think so. It’s seems like Christians say they are monotheists, but they are actually polytheistic. If they can’t even understand if they believe in one god or many gods then why should I believe what they do? I’m welcome to new ideas, please prove me wrong. I’m 15, don’t be to hard on me

[jimwalton]

Hi. Let's talk, as long as you are welcome to new ideas.

> As I understand it, the devil, angels, demons, and the heavenly hosts talked about in revalation are Demigods by definition, but Christians don’t seem to think so.

We don't think so because, when it comes right down to it, we know almost nothing about Satan, demons, angels, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, or any of the other spirit beings Paul seems to refer to when he speaks of "authorities (principalities) or powers." Neither the Old nor New Testament actually teach anything about these. Our knowledge about them is close to zilch, except that they exist and they affect the world. All we have is unelaborated passing references. So we can't take any kind of a stance, let alone a firm stance, let alone "defined as." You started off by mostly claiming "these are demigods," and you started with the conclusion "You are polytheistic." First you have to make your case that they are demigods.

In Old Testament theology, "Satan" is not known as a personal spirit being. The term is used only in reference to an adversary. He's not an enemy of God but only a functionary of God's. And there is no reference to demons in the OT.

In the New Testament, Satan takes on personal characteristics that we would consider evil, but we still know nothing about his origin, the nature of his being, his exact relationship to God (He is not portrayed as an enemy of God but rather only as an enemy of God's people), or what his powers are. We are told he is a liar, a tempter, a murderer, and the cause of sorcery, idolatry, and one who brings death. That's not enough to classify him as a demigod.

The demons are portrayed as nonmoral chaos creatures. They stir up trouble, but they're not portrayed as evil, ungodly, or demigods. They are spirit beings about which we know almost nothing.

> It’s seems like Christians say they are monotheists, but they are actually polytheistic.

So, no, we're not polytheistic. God is the only deity, though he's not the only spirit being.

Hey, thanks for jumping into the pool. I hope you have many productive conversations here.

[Flashy]

Can you provide any shred of evidence of a spirit world or a demon? How do I know your talk of spirits isn’t fictional?

[jimwalton]

The spirit world isn't subject to scientific experiments or even empirical evidence. It's something the Bible talks about. If you believe in the Bible for other reasons based on evidences, then you believe in the spirit world also. If you don't believe the Bible because of the evidences, then you would also reject any notion of the spirit world.

It's like other things. I had a memory this afternoon of something that happened a few years ago. If you challenged me with the same challenge: "Can you provide any shred of evidence that you had that memory, or even that that thing happened a few years ago? How do I know your talk about that memory isn't fictional?" I'd have to give the same response: such things aren't subject to scientific experiments or empirical evidence. If you learn that I am an honest and reliable person with reliable memories, that's the best proof you're going to get.

[One fish Bluefish]

> Satan takes on personal characteristics that we would consider evil, but we still know nothing about his origin, the nature of his being, his exact relationship to God (He is not portrayed as an enemy of God but rather only as an enemy of God's people)

his origin is an angel that wanted to be more powerful and to be equal with god. he didn't like that, and kicked him out. his nature is pure evilness. his relationship with god is a competeder. he wants to be all powerful as well. he is pretty clearly the enemy of god, or else he would be in heaven, and there would be no hell.

> The demons are portrayed as nonmoral chaos creatures. They stir up trouble, but they're not portrayed as evil, ungodly, or demigods.

except when they possess people and cause them to go against god's will, sending them to eternal punishment. seems a little evil tbh.

> That's not enough to classify him as a demigod.

(talking about satan)"a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." he seems to have super human powers. being able to possess people at will, living forever, being able to speak directly into peoples mind, all seem pretty super human, and godly to me. we (being most people) would classify gods that had far fewer powers as gods. like most ancient gods would still be gods or demigods even if they couldn't do half this stuff.

i know these quotes are out of order, i kept skipping around your comment and thinking of things to say for different parts. sorry, my brain hates me i guess. "Let's talk, as long as you are welcome to new ideas." i am if you are.

[jimwalton]

> his origin is an angel that wanted to be more powerful and to be equal with god.

We don't know this. We don't know anything about Satan's origin. The only verses that are usually used to speak of such things is Isaiah 14.12-15—verses about the king of Tyre. But these verses are about the king of Tyre, not about Satan. We don't know anything about where Satan came from, when, or why. We don't know that he wanted to be more powerful and to be equal with God. The Bible doesn't give us that information. If you know where it is, I'll be glad to talk about it with you.

> he didn't like that, and kicked him out.

We don't know this either. If you have a verse you'd like to discuss, I'll be glad to discuss it.

> his nature is pure evilness.

In the OT, he is not described as evil at all, let alone pure evil. If you know of a NT verse that labels him as pure evil, or anything even close to that, just tell me and I'll be glad to discuss it.

> his relationship with god is a competeder.

Again, I need a verse to show that this is true.

> he wants to be all powerful as well

Verse?

> he is pretty clearly the enemy of god, or else he would be in heaven, and there would be no hell.

In that sense, we can infer that he opposes God. The OT doesn't show him to be an enemy of God. The OT doesn't even show Satan to be being with that name. If you have a verse, I'll be glad to discuss it. In the NT he opposes God's people, and in that sense opposes God.

You'll need to bring some Bible teaching to the table. Otherwise, you've just been taught some things that just aren't so. I can't evaluate, because I don't know you, but I wonder if you've become an atheist because you've been misinformed about God and the Bible, and you've rejected Christianity on false premises. I only guess that because you seem to have some Bible knowledge, but you consider yourself an atheist, and you're 15.

> except when they possess people and cause them to go against god's will

They do possess people. Do you have a verse where the people who are possessed go against God's will?

> sending them to eternal punishment

Sending them to eternal punishment because of demon possession? Verse?

> (talking about satan)"a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."

Yeah, I don't know where this definition comes from. It sounds like a dictionary, but it's not the definition the Bible gives to Satan.

> he seems to have super human powers.

Such as? Verse?

> being able to possess people at will

Satan possessing people? Verse?

> living forever

Verse? Where are you getting this stuff?

I'd love to keep talking about this with you. You can tell that I question your information. It seems like you were taught in a church, but these things you're saying aren't in the Bible. If you can find them, I'd be glad to talk about it. If you can't find them, I hope you'd be open to new ideas if you were proved wrong.

I'm glad to keep talking.

[Flashy]

Incorrect analogy. We can back up memories with photos videos etc. physical evidence.

If there is no evidence corroborating a spirit world, why should anyone accept it as truth?

There is no evidence for plenty of other fictional worlds either.

I should add. Old memories at least aren’t extraordinary events. A spirit world is an extraordinary claim.

[jimwalton]

> Incorrect analogy. We can back up memories with photos videos etc. physical evidence.

Oh, I wasn't using memories as an analogy. It was another example of realities that are not subject to scientific experiments or empirical evidence. If you asked me the same question about a particular memory that you do about the spirit world, I would have just as little scientific evidence of each one.

> We can back up memories with photos videos etc. physical evidence.

Oh, we can, but often we don't. During my junior year of college, some kid was making fun of me and I pushed him into a bush. No one caught it on camera. There is no residual physical evidence. There is no scientific proof of it, nor any way to confirm it empirically. What I am asserting is that the lack of such evidence is not the way to evaluate whether or not it happened.

> If there is no evidence corroborating a spirit world, why should anyone accept it as truth?

Only a small sliver of reality is verifiable by physical evidence. Science is not the catch-all category for all reality, though some (and possibly you) try to make it so. There are abstract realities such as justice, peace, happiness, truth, good and evil. There are metaphysical realities such as language, memories, intuitions, perceptions. There are academic disciplines that don't depend on scientific confirmation such as jurisprudence, literature, philosophy, and the studios arts. It's quite limiting to think that if something can't be proved by science one should not accept it as truth. My mind and way of thinking are far less restricted than that.

> There is no evidence for plenty of other fictional worlds either.

Of course there is no evidence for fictional worlds, by definition.

> A spirit world is an extraordinary claim.

Over the course of history, and even in the world today, I would think that a scientific study would conclude just the opposite. Throughout history in cultures worldwide there is a firm belief in the spirit world. Even in our present world I would guess you would find a majority of people on the planet believe in a spirit world. I'm quite confident that an honest study of history and cultures would offer up the conclusion that not believing in a spirit world is the extraordinary claim. You have to think broader and freer than empiricism.

[Big Black]

So your argument is, if I may paraphrase.

There are these supernatural beings. And while they don't meet your definition of God, they certainly meet many others. But because they are not your one true God, they don't count. And thus, you are monotheistic.

They aren't Gods; because the bible doesn't "call" them Gods, so they don't count.

[jimwalton]

It's always risky to let someone else put his or her words into my mouth, so I try to be careful. I have tried to read it over thoroughly, and it seems I agree with your paraphrase of my assertion. These are supernatural beings. It's not that they don't meet my definition of God, but rather that the don't meet the Bible's definition of God, which is "the one supreme being." My definition doesn't matter, since we're talking about Christianity. There is nothing about them that is God-like. They are not eternal, but created. They are not omniscient, not omnipotent, not omnipresent. They are not holy. They are not Creators. They are not the judge of all. They are not sovereign over all. It's not that they aren't Gods because the Bible doesn't "call" them Gods, but rather that they aren't Gods because the only God-like attribute they have is that they are spiritual beings. Other than that, they have no qualifications or attributes for the class of "deity." So of course they don't count as deity.