Re: Taxonomy of supernatural beings

Pavel Adamek wrote:
> > > > an atheist may perfectly well believe
> > > > in the existence of, say, jinns.
> > >
> > >Do you consider the old Greek mythology to be atheistic,
> > >because there is no almighty God with capital "G" there?
> > >
> > >Let us not to confuse Gods with gods:
> > >
> > >1) almighty God(s), usually only one. He is refered to as
> > >Eru, Iluvatar, Krishna, JHWH, al-Lah.
> > >2) Ainur, gods, jinns
> >
> > While what you say is perfectly valid, the word _theism_ happens to
>include
> > both the belief in God and in gods.
>
>I think so too
>and it was the reason why I wonded
>how a man believing in jinns could be described as an atheist.
>
> > If we need to make the distinction,
> > we can usually speak of monotheism vs polytheism.
>
>There are 2 sorts of monotheism:
>
>1) belief in God only and unbelief in gods = monotheism
>2) belief in God and gods = monotheism
>3) belief in gods only and unbelief in God = polytheism
>4) unbelief in God and unbelief in gods = atheism
>
> > The only trouble here is the boundary one -
> > where exactly is one to draw the line
> > between gods of relatively limited power
> > (belief in which would make you a theist)
> > and powerful jinns/angels/demons
> > (belief in which wouldn't on it's own).
>
>But can any such line be drawen?
>I cannot see any difference between gods and Valar.
>(IMO, Manwe is probably the same guy as
>our PIE. Djews/Zeus/Jupiter/Ti:wz/Ty:r.)
>And Tolkien says that Valar = angels,
>and Muhammad says that angels are sort of jinns.
Obviously it can be drawn - it question is only how much sense it'll make.
The line that suggests itself most quickly to me is to say that if
supernatural being is subject to worship it's a god, whereas jinns etc are
spirits one might bargain with, ask for help or even try to trick, but that
one does not worship. I'll be the first to agree that this definition still
leaves us with boundary-drawing problems. But traditionally we DO draw a
line. It's simply not normal usage to call somebody who believes in ghosts,
but not in any beings worthy of worship, a theist.

BTW, according to my textbook on the world's religions, _Tiwaz_, _Tyr_ isn't
cognate of, _Dyaus_, _Zeus_, _Ju(-piter)_ etc, but of *_deiwos_, _deus_,
_daeva_ etc. Any IEists around to clarify a bit?

FYI: In a book about the Wixarica (aka Huichol) Indians of western Mexico I
read a while ago (it was called "Wixarica" with a lengthy subtitle including
"Toltecs", "city-states", "legends" and gods-know-what more; I can't recall
the name of the author) the author argues quite forcibly against the use of
the word "god" about the Indians' "nature relatives" (personifications of
the Sun, the Deer, etc), as the Wixarica thought/think of these more as
benevolent elder siblings than as authoritative parents.

                                                        Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Replies