In “The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 3” I pointed out what the actual definition of polytheism is and then proceeded to explain why the Divine Council view is polytheism by definition. Then Sharkly came by and reminded me of Bnonn Tennant’s posts. So let’s delve right in, shall we?
TL;DR: yes, but accusing someone who believes this of polytheism or liberalism is semantic mischief.
This is astounding. Bnnon is an intelligent and logical man. I can’t believe he actually wrote this. Has Heiser’s influence—he even uses Heiser’s Bible translation!—turned him into a shell of the man he once was?
This is the same Bnonn Tennant who believes you can call someone a moron when they say something that’s obviously wrong and they clearly should know better. Because Bnonn Tennant believes that such things are Christlike, I’m going to temporarily suspend my “no ad hominem” rule and say this: …. nah, I can’t do it. Sorry, guys.
Semantics, for those who do not know, deal with the meaning of words. And the meaning of the word polytheism is this:
That’s right: the belief in—or worship of—more than one god.
So Bnnon asks himself “Is Psalm 82 depicting actual gods?” and answers “Yes.”
Do you know what you call “accusing” someone of polytheism who has asserted the existence of more than one god? Semantically accurate. Semantically faithful. Devotion to semantic purity, if you will.
Bnnon, the belief that there are more than one god makes you a polytheist. By definition. By actual semantics. That’s what semantics are: the meaning of things, and the meaning of polytheism matches your view exactly.
There are no weaselly qualifiers specified in the definition of polytheism. It’s plain as day: is there more than one god? Yes? Then, polytheism. End of discussion.
Do you know what they call it when you claim that belief in multiple gods is not polytheism? Semantic mischief.
I didn’t read the rest of Bnnon’s article (hello, “TL;DR”), because I wasn’t interested in his semantic mischief trying to talk himself out of what he clearly, clearly self-attests. You can read it and report back. Let me know if Bnonn is really a moron.
Also, yes, it really is “liberalism,” specifically secularist scholarship, but I’ve written elsewhere about that. That, and the habit of leftists to redefine words they don’t like the implications of.
In “The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 3” I pointed out what the actual definition of polytheism is and then proceeded to explain why the Divine Council view is polytheism by definition. Then Sharkly came by{egged on & tradcon ”redpilled” peer- ”pressured” by c@ward & game-playing Brian Forbes AKA Jack (”sigma frame”) Wayne who is too much of a ”frame”less chixcken$#hit queen bee to do it him/her/itself} and reminded me of Bnonn Tennant’s posts. So let’s delve right in, shall we?
I’m glad you can tell that ”jack” gets/eggs on/ others to look non-”neutral” while he still looks (in his/her/it s Bellevuian mind)” G-rated ” ”reasonable” & non-”sectarian” all while being a disingenuous sectarian fraud.
After all that g@y yelling from sparkly who happily and humbly submits to as you wrote ”c@ward Brian Forbes AKA ”jack”(”sigma frame”) Wayne” that Soup Sandwich AKA ”eos” AKA ”you know who also” must have been egged on & tradcon ”redpilled” peer- ”pressured” by ”c@ward & game-playing Brian Forbes AKA Jack (”sigma frame”) Wayne” to call sparkly gay back in 2020 too.
Which sent sparkly ever more edging him/her/it towards his/her/its long stay at Bellevue.
Pingback: Following a Script