Christianity is a falling religion

[theophilus]

the Mormon faith is the only faith that teaches love and acceptance.

Do you consider the Mountain Meadows massacre an example of Mormon love and acceptance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

[shunyadragon]

I can see the day where Christianity or at least what people call Orthodox, corrupts and falls at the seams. The whole idea of the trinity makes no sense at all. People need to wake up and see the light. Three persons? One entity? That doesn't work. Its quite apparent, even with scripture that Jesus and God the Father are two separate entities. One day, we are going to see the uprising of the Mormon people. Stand and Unite for the LDS church, and praise our founder of the religion, Joseph Smith.

I consider there to be to many flaws in the LDS church to consider it in any way a Universal faith revealed by God. Part of the problem is shared with ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in that their Doctrines, Dogma, and beliefs are grounded in ancient mythology. The next problem is also shared by both is the Trinity, which evolved form a Roman/Hellenist beliefs in Gods. The LDS view you describe is specifically more polytheist and in LDS includes the concept of even more Gods with 'chosen believers?' even becoming Gods. The problem of polytheism remains whether you consider there to be 'three in One' Gods, or three distinct Gods as in LDS beliefs.

The other problem is the severe issue of the history of the Americas as portrayed in the Book of Mormon, and of course the questionable history of the book. There is absolutely no evidence for the complicated advanced history described in the Americas.

Another problem is the racism apparent in the history of LDS, which reared it's ugly head recently in the banning of the illusive interracial marriage.

Your view of Christianity as 'Falling' is wishfull thinking. Traditional Christianity is well entrenched in the world as the largest religion in the world. My hope of the future that more people realize the antiquated nature of ancient religions that cannot rationally and logically justified in a universal perspective of the diverse cultural an religious view of gods and religion in the history of humanity grounded in narrow views of ancient myth with only anecdotal claims to support these beliefs.

[robrecht]

... The next problem is also shared by both is the Trinity, which evolved form a Roman/Hellenist beliefs in Gods. The LDS view you describe is specifically more polytheist and in LDS includes the concept of even more Gods with 'chosen believers?' even becoming Gods. The problem of polytheism remains whether you consider there to be 'three in One' Gods, or three distinct Gods as in LDS beliefs. ...

What exactly is the problem? That it evolved from Roman/Hellenist beliefs in God?

[shunyadragon]

What exactly is the problem? That it evolved from Roman/Hellenist beliefs in God?

Yes it devolved from a monotheistic Judaism to a complex polytheism or a contorted Tritheistic monotheism, to a specific polytheistic beliefs in the LDS church. On the other hand Judaism evolved to a more pure monotheistic belief and remains so today. By far most Jews rejected, left the church or were ethnically cleansed from the Roman Church as it became a Roman/Hellenist Church.

[shunyadragon]

And it's a lie.

Probably not a 'lie,' bit more a deluded belief like the beliefs grounded in mythology shared by many ancient religions.

[robrecht]

Yes it devolved from a monotheistic Judaism to a complex polytheism or a contorted Tritheistic monotheism, to a specific polytheistic beliefs in the LDS church. On the other hand Judaism evolved to a more pure monotheistic belief and remains so today. By far most Jews rejected, left the church or were ethnically cleansed from the Roman Church as it became a Roman/Hellenist Church

So the problem is not that it 'evolved' from Roman/Hellenist beliefs, but as you now say, it 'devolved', and your disparaging view that it devolved is based on your interpretation of the Trinity as a form of polytheism, an interpretation that is rejected by those who actually believe in the Trinity. You, and those who believe in the Trinity, reject tri-theism.

[shunyadragon]

So the problem is not that it 'evolved' from Roman/Hellenist beliefs, but as you now say, it 'devolved', and your disparaging view that it devolved is based on your interpretation of the Trinity as a form of polytheism, an interpretation that is rejected by those who actually believe in the Trinity. You, and those who believe in the Trinity, reject tri-theism.

Of course it is 'rejected by those who actually believe in the Trinity,' and yes the more polytheistic view of LDS is actually believed by LDS believers. This, of course does make these views remotely necessarily true, They are simply believed like the sky is Carolina blue on the 4th of July on a clear day at noon.

It remains a problem whether you call it 'evolved or devolved.' In after thought I consider 'devolved' a better term as opposed 'evolved' in the case of the Traditional Christian and LDS beliefs. It does not represent the pure monotheistic belief of Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, which I believe is the true traditional view rejecting mutliple, and incarnate Gods.

[robrecht]

Of course it is 'rejected by those who actually believe in the Trinity,' and yes the more polytheistic view of LDS is actually believed by LDS believers. This, of course does make these views remotely necessarily true, They are simply believed like the sky is Carolina blue on the 4th of July on a clear day at noon.

It remains a problem whether you call it 'evolved or devolved.' In after thought I consider 'devolved' a better term as opposed 'evolved' in the case of the Traditional Christian and LDS beliefs. It does not represent the pure monotheistic belief of Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith, which I believe is the true traditional view rejecting mutliple, and incarnate Gods.

Christians say in their creed that they believe in one God. They say they believe in monotheism and specifically reject tritheism and any other forms of polytheism. Your contention that this is not in fact what they truly believe is silly, or worse. If you don't go by what they actually say, you're just substituting your (in this case pejorative) characterization of their beliefs rather than their own characterization of their beliefs. This is not to be trusted in a religious polemicist denigrating the beliefs of others. Just go by what they themselves say in their own religious texts, creeds, and theological explanations. There is no other way to engage in diaglogue; otherwise you're just engaging in religious polemics.

[shunyadragon]

Christians say in their creed that they believe in one God. They say they believe in monotheism and specifically reject tritheism and any other forms of polytheism. Your contention that this is not in fact what they truly believe is silly, or worse. If you don't go by what they actually say, you're just substituting your (in this case pejorative) characterization of their beliefs rather than their own characterization of their beliefs. This is not to be trusted in a religious polemicist denigrating the beliefs of others. Just go by what they themselves say in their own religious texts, creeds, and theological explanations. There is no other way to engage in dialogue; otherwise you're just engaging in religious polemics.

I go with actually what I believe and go by the evidence of the history of belief. Again, just because Christians called belief in monotheism does not make it true. I have never called it 'silly or worse' or whatever. I consider it polytheism when you consider that there are three distinct persons or what ever in one God and belief in an incarnate God which both are heresies in Judaism if Jews believe this as in 'Jews for Christ' movement and at the time of Jesus. Of course, if gentiles believe this they are indifferent or tolerant of this heresy outside Judaism. The same is true of the LDS church. They may challenge me that the LDS belief is not 'polytheism' and say it is a form of monotheism, but that remains a difference in the view of belief.

Difference in views of a belief, doctrine or dogma, does not make it 'religious polemics,' or what ever. We have had this discussion before, and challenges of 'religious polemics' is a dodge and does not address the fact that we disagree on what constitutes monotheism versus polytheism. Yes technically I am presenting a polemic argument that the Christian Trinity is a form of polytheism, and the LDS belief is full blown polytheism. Polemics is not necessarily negative as you describe. Like wise Vedic (Hinduism) religions often will often assert that the are monotheists, because all their lesser Gods are only aspects and attributes of the one God, Brahman. Scholars in the west often describe Vedic beliefs as polytheistic, and likewise their argument cannot be dismissed as mere polemics.

The Jewish view is instructive. Jewish scholars vary over time for their tolerance of these beliefs outside Judaism, but nonetheless over all it is considered heresy.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shituf

Shituf (Hebrew: שִׁתּוּף; also transliterated as shittuf or schituf; literally "association") is a term used in Jewish sources for the worship of the God of Israel in a manner which Judaism does not deem to be monotheistic. The term connotes a theology that is not outright polytheistic, but also should not be seen as purely monotheistic. The term is primarily used in reference to the Christian Trinity by Jewish legal authorities who wish to distinguish Christianity from full-blown polytheism. Though a Jew would be forbidden from maintaining a shituf theology, non-Jews would, in some form, be permitted such a theology without being regarded as idolaters by Jews. That said, whether Christianity is shituf or formal polytheism remains a debate in Jewish theology.

Shituf is first mentioned in the commentary of Tosfot on the Babylonian Talmud,[1] in a passage concluding with a lenient ruling regarding non-Jews. Later authorities are divided between those who view Tosfot as permitting non-Jews to swear by the name of God even if they associate other deities with that name, and those who view Tosfot as permitting non-Jews to actually worship such deities.Template:See Pitchei Teshuva Y.D. 147

Though shituf is primarily used as a means of determining how to relate to Christians, it is applied to other religions as well. It is frequently used as a reason to justify interfaith dialog with Christians.

Some contemporary Orthodox commentators have stated the allowance for shituf extends only to belief in multiple or complex deity, but not to worship of such a thing:

One contemporary view of Shituf holds that in Judaism there is allowance for Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbidding actual worship of them:

So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

I go with actually what I believe and go by the evidence of the history of belief.

But what you believe about other peoples beliefs is less reliable than what others themselves actually believe, and this has been borne out by centuries of failed religious polemics.

Again, just because Christians called belief in monotheism does not make it true.

You've presented no evidence that Christians are misrepresenting that fact that they believe in one God.

I have never called it 'silly or worse' or whatever.

You misunderstand. Your contention that Christians are misrepresenting their beliefs is silly, or worse. Especially when you have presented no evidence whatsoever of misrepresentation.

I consider it polytheism when you consider that there are three distinct persons or what ever in one God and belief in an incarnate God which both are heresies in Judaism if Jews believe this as in 'Jews for Christ' movement and at the time of Jesus.

You are not using 'person' in the same sense that Christians are when they speak of One God subsisting in three persons. Christians believe that God is beyond our human conception of personhood and beyond our human conception of interpersonal relations, thus our human conceptions of persons and relations between and among persons does not limit the oneness and simplicity of God who cannot be defined.

Of course, if gentiles believe this they are indifferent or tolerant of this heresy outside Judaism. The same is true of the LDS church. They may challenge me that the LDS belief is not 'polytheism' and say it is a form of monotheism, but that remains a difference in the view of belief.

Difference in views of a belief, doctrine or dogma, does not make it 'religious polemics,' or what ever. We have had this discussion before, and challenges of 'religious polemics' is a dodge and does not address the fact that we disagree on what constitutes monotheism versus polytheism. Yes technically I am presenting a polemic argument that the Christian Trinity is a form of polytheism, and the LDS belief is full blown polytheism. Polemics is not necessarily negative as you describe. Like wise Vedic (Hinduism) religions often will often assert that the are monotheists, because all their lesser Gods are only aspects and attributes of the one God, Brahman. Scholars in the west often describe Vedic beliefs as polytheistic, and likewise their argument cannot be dismissed as mere polemics.

You have yet to demonstrate any value of your brand of religious polemics over genuine and honest dialoge that is respectful of the beliefs of others.

The Jewish view is instructive. Jewish scholars vary over time for their tolerance of these beliefs outside Judaism, but nonetheless over all it is considered heresy.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shituf

Shituf (Hebrew: שִׁתּוּף; also transliterated as shittuf or schituf; literally "association") is a term used in Jewish sources for the worship of the God of Israel in a manner which Judaism does not deem to be monotheistic. The term connotes a theology that is not outright polytheistic, but also should not be seen as purely monotheistic. The term is primarily used in reference to the Christian Trinity by Jewish legal authorities who wish to distinguish Christianity from full-blown polytheism. Though a Jew would be forbidden from maintaining a shituf theology, non-Jews would, in some form, be permitted such a theology without being regarded as idolaters by Jews. That said, whether Christianity is shituf or formal polytheism remains a debate in Jewish theology.

Shituf is first mentioned in the commentary of Tosfot on the Babylonian Talmud,[1] in a passage concluding with a lenient ruling regarding non-Jews. Later authorities are divided between those who view Tosfot as permitting non-Jews to swear by the name of God even if they associate other deities with that name, and those who view Tosfot as permitting non-Jews to actually worship such deities.Template:See Pitchei Teshuva Y.D. 147

Though shituf is primarily used as a means of determining how to relate to Christians, it is applied to other religions as well. It is frequently used as a reason to justify interfaith dialog with Christians.

Some contemporary Orthodox commentators have stated the allowance for shituf extends only to belief in multiple or complex deity, but not to worship of such a thing:

One contemporary view of Shituf holds that in Judaism there is allowance for Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbidding actual worship of them:

So long as ascribing power to a deity other than the Creator remains conceptual, it is permissible to the Children of Noah according to many authorities. But worship of this independent being is clearly idolatry.

© Copyright Original Source

I would be happy to discuss Jewish theology and halakah with Jewish theologians or believers or anyone who demonstrates a genuine understanding of the thought of any specific Jewish theologians.

[shunyadragon]

My 'religious polemic' is shared by others.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/

Daniel Howard-Snyder (2003) offers numerous objections, some of which are as follows. They can't avoid either polytheism or different levels of divinity, either of which would make their theory (contrary to their intentions) unorthodox. The Cerberus analogy is criticized on the grounds that it would be not one dog with three minds, but rather, three dogs with overlapping bodies. They uphold (with the creeds) one divine substance, and yet by their own criteria each of the three persons must be a substance as well, and they hold that each person is divine. Thus, they seem saddled with polytheism (393–5). In their view God is not a personal being, in the sense of being numerically identical with a certain self, even though it (God) has parts which are selves. They want to say, for example, that each of the three is all-knowing, and they also want to say God is all-knowing, in that he has parts which are all-knowing. But Howard-Snyder objects that,

…there can be no “lending” of a property [i.e., a whole “getting” a property from one of its parts] unless the borrower is antecedently the sort of thing that can have it….[Therefore,] Unless God is antecedently the sort of thing that can act intentionally—that is, unless God is a person—God cannot borrow the property of creating the heavens and the earth from the Son….All other [statements involving] acts attributed to God [in the Bible] will likewise turn out to be, strictly and literally, false. (399–400)

In their view, a thing (God) can exemplify the divine nature without itself being a (identical to) a self. Nor can divinity include properties which require being a self, e.g., being all-knowing, being perfectly free. This, he argues, is “an abysmally low” view of the divine nature, as “If God is not a person or agent, then God does not know anything, cannot act, cannot choose, cannot be morally good, cannot be worthy of worship” (401).

© Copyright Original Source

These problems of polytheism need to be also addressed concerning the beliefs of the LDS church.

[shunyadragon]

Also here more 'religious polemics.'

Source: https://www3.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Polytheism.pdf

III. Conclusion

I have argued that, given the interpretation of Egyptian syncretism that is endorsed by scholars like Hornung, Baines, and others, Amun-Re theology is directly analogous to
ST-Christianity. Since Amun-Re theology as I have interpreted it is clearly polytheistic, the close analogy with ST-Christianity strongly favours a view according to which ST-Christianity is polytheistic as well. We have also seen that there is controversy about whether Egyptian religion in the New Kingdom and during other periods was polytheistic; but, far from providing resources for a monotheistic understanding of Social Trinitarianism, that controversy seems only to seal the case in favour of the polytheistic nature of ST-Christianity. The reason, again, is that the controversy over the question whether Egyptian religion was polytheistic turns on the question whether the gods of Egypt are best regarded as manifestations of a single divine reality. On the interpretation of the Amun-Re theology that I have favoured, they are not. Likewise, on the Social Trinitarian’s understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not manifestations of a single divine reality—if, in other words, there were no viable interpretation of that doctrine according to which they were distinct but still, somehow, the same God—then the conclusion of this essay would probably be that Christians should learn to be content regarding themselves as in some sense polytheists. In that event, I would urge that attention be shifted away from defending the Christian claim to monotheism and towards an investigation of the question what sorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose.

If, however, there are interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity which (while avoiding the heresy of modalism) are consistent with monotheism,26 I say so much the better for those interpretations, and so much the worse for Social Trinitarianism.

To take just a few examples, see the essays in Athanassiadi and Frede (1999), Davies (1989), and Porter (2000). See also MacDonald (2003), Mavrodes (1995), Miller (1974), Owen (2002), and Smith (2001). I am grateful to Carl Mosser for pressing me to take explicit notice of the great diversity of opinions about the nature of monotheism and polytheism and of the great difficulty involved in providing satisfying characterizations of each. Despite the difficulty and diversity, however, I think that it is possible to discern broad lines of agreement; and, as indicated above, I think that once those lines have been discerned, it is easy to see that Social Trinitarians fall afoul of them.

If there were no orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity according to which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might meaningfully be said to be manifestations of a single divine reality—if, in other words, there were no viable interpretation of that doctrine according to which they were distinct but still, somehow, the same God—then the conclusion of this essay would probably be that Christians should learn to be content regarding themselves as in some sense polytheists. In that event, I would
urge that attention be shifted away from defending the Christian claim to monotheism and towards an investigation of the question what sorts of polytheism Christianity means to oppose. If, however, there are interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity which (while avoiding the heresy of modalism) are consistent with monotheism, I say so much the better for those interpretations, and so much the worse for Social
Trinitarianism.

Michael C. Rea
University of Notre Dame, Indiana

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

But what you believe about other peoples beliefs is less reliable than what others themselves actually believe, and this has been borne out by centuries of failed religious polemics.

Napoleon also won the Battle of Waterloo. This is an odd statement by any accounts. Reliability does not equal 'what other (majority?) people actually believe.' Classic fallacy of arguing from popularity. If it is the most popular belief than it is the true belief, riiiggggghttt?

You've presented no evidence that Christians are misrepresenting that fact that they believe in one God.

You misunderstand. Your contention that Christians are misrepresenting their beliefs is silly, or worse. Especially when you have presented no evidence whatsoever of misrepresentation.

First, evidence?!?!?! There is no such thing in this sort of theological/philosophical discussion. There are references which support my view and I have provided them.

Misrepresentation?!?!!? I disagree with the Traditional Christian interpretation, you need to work on your wording of our disagreement.

You are not using 'person' in the same sense that Christians are when they speak of One God subsisting in three persons. Christians believe that God is beyond our human conception of personhood and beyond our human conception of interpersonal relations, thus our human conceptions of persons and relations between and among persons does not limit the oneness and simplicity of God who cannot be defined.

Of course, we differ in our interpretation, but I am not alone. See previous references.

You have yet to demonstrate any value of your brand of religious polemics over genuine and honest dialogue that is respectful of the beliefs of others.

Ahhhh! your saying now my brand of 'religious polemics.' That's a new twist. I gave more very good references on the issue for you to respond to. It is not just my brand, others share my view.

There is no reason for you to intimate that it is dishonest dialogue. Do you consider the other references I gave 'dishonest?'

I would be happy to discuss Jewish theology and halakah with Jewish theologians or believers or anyone who demonstrates a genuine understanding of the thought of any specific Jewish theologians.

No response here to my specific reference. Jewish theologians do give somewhat variable views on the Christian Trinity, but nonetheless it is considered heretical. Open a thread and we will discuss it.

[robrecht]

Napoleon also won the Battle of Waterloo. This is an odd statement by any accounts. Reliability does not equal 'what other (majority?) people actually believe.' Classic fallacy of arguing from popularity. If it is the most popular belief than it is the true belief, riiiggggghttt?

Nonesense. I made no argument from popularity. It is the authentic beliefs as expressed by those who actually hold those beliefs vs your pejorative characterization of their beliefs. The former is a much more reliable source of their actual beliefs. You demonstrate right here that in your desire to be pejorative toward my statement you completely miss the point of what I actually said.

First, evidence?!?!?! There is no such thing in this sort of theological/philosophical discussion. There are references which support my view and I have provided them.

Misrepresentation?!?!!? I disagree with the Traditional Christian interpretation, you need to work on your wording of our disagreement.

You admit that you have no evidence for your claim that Christians misrepresent their monotheistic beliefs.

Of course, we differ in our interpretation, but I am not alone. See previous references.

See that would be an argument from (very limited) popularity.

Ahhhh! your saying now my brand of 'religious polemics.' That's a new twist. I gave more very good references on the issue for you to respond to. It is not just my brand, others share my view.

I have long objected to your preference for religious polemics and mischaracterization of the beliefs of others, contrary to their own account of their beliefs. No new twist here.

There is no reason for you to intimate that it is dishonest dialogue. Do you consider the other references I gave 'dishonest?'

Honest and genuine dialogue does not assert that others are misrepresenting their beliefs without any evidence to support such a claim. I have not seen in your references that same perspective, but nor have I attempted to engage in honest and genuine dialogue with the authors of your 'references', who are not part of this discussion so I can't really judge if they are making the same claims that you are.

No response here to my specific reference. Jewish theologians do give somewhat variable views on the Christian Trinity, but nonetheless it is considered heretical. Open a thread and we will discuss it.

It is much to vague to offer anything of value to our discussion. Give a name of a specific theologian and access to their views in depth and I may be able to engage in a thoughtful discussion with those particular views. Wikipedia references that do nothing more than say some say this and some say that does not add anything of value.

[shunyadragon]

Nonesense. I made no argument from popularity. It is the authentic beliefs as expressed by those who actually hold those beliefs vs your pejorative characterization of their beliefs. The former is a much more reliable source of their actual beliefs. You demonstrate right here that in your desire to be pejorative toward my statement you completely miss the point of what I actually said.

Ohhh yes you did! You believe because I disagree with Traditional Christianity, they are correct, because they are the majority, and I am misrepresenting there views and have no right to disagree with the majority popular opinion.

You admit that you have no evidence for your claim that Christians misrepresent their monotheistic beliefs.

What possible 'evidence' could there be to a disagreement concerning the correct understanding of the Divine nature of God? I can and did provide philosophical/theological scholars that share my views. Yes, they share the same view, and you are playing 'Duck, Bob and Weave' avoiding responding to my references.

See that would be an argument from (very limited) popularity.

Popularity is not the issue here. Again a fallacy dodge

My theological disagreement and interpretation is not misinterpretation of beliefs.

I have long objected to your preference for religious polemics and mischaracterization of the beliefs of others, contrary to their own account of their beliefs. No new twist here.

I do nor mischaractorize, I disagree, and you have failed to respond honestly to my sources and my argument in this thread (of topic) and previous threads.

Honest and genuine dialogue does not assert that others are misrepresenting their beliefs without any evidence to support such a claim. I have not seen in your references that same perspective, but nor have I attempted to engage in honest and genuine dialogue with the authors of your 'references', who are not part of this discussion so I can't really judge if they are making the same claims that you are.

No problem, they are making the same claims I am.

My references are genuinely part of the discussion. Ignoring them and failing to respond just weakens your vague response. Differences in belief and interpretation is not misrepresentation. There is no honest dialogue in your responses just foolish accusations.

Are you considering my sources mischaractorization of the Trinitarian view s of Traditional Christianity? As Philosophy/Theology scholars I do not think they share that view.

The sources provide a more detailed description of my view. Please respond.

It is much to vague to offer anything of value to our discussion. Give a name of a specific theologian and access to their views in depth and I may be able to engage in a thoughtful discussion with those particular views. Wikipedia references that do nothing more than say some say this and some say that does not add anything of value.

Far too much vague, and actually no response at all. If you have issues with my reference (cursing the messenger) please start a thread on the issue.