Christianity is a polytheistic religion.

My opponent makes the assertion that since this is a debate about Christianity, then therefore we must logically use the Christian definition of god. This is untrue, however. I could have said that "Satan is a supreme being according to some particular conception", but it is much easier to simply state "Satan is a god" since they mean the exact same thing. I do not see it as unreasonable to state that "Satan is a supreme being according to some particular conception" and thus is what I meant when I stated that he was a god. He fits the criteria for what a god is, and we could therefore use the English word "god" to talk about him, when analyzing the religion from an objective standpoint. The bible's description of Satan (and all of the other angels and spiritual entities who have power in the world) could be described as a "god" because that is the word for that. The bible merely does not use that word to call it that. It calls them "angels". What term the bible uses to describe them, however, is not important, since it has the same meaning as "god". I would like to clearly establish that I am fully aware that the bible does not use the word "gods" to describe it's angels. I am not asserting that the bible calls them gods, I am asserting that they meet the definition of what a god is. Whether a religion is polytheistic or not is not determined by the wording of it's texts but the MEANING of the texts. Any religious person should know to respect the spirit of it rather than the way it was written down on paper. "Angels" and "gods" have the same MEANING. My opponent stated: "I did not say that you were saying they are the same person. You continue to misquote me over and over again." You said that my words should be interpreted using the Christian definition of god. The Christian definition of "God" is Yahweh. If I were saying that Lucifer was a "God", using the Christian definition, than I would be saying that it is Yahweh. My opponent conceded the reliability of the dictionary when defining words when she stated: "The dictionary may be useful for looking up the accepted definitions for certain words, yes." She later states: "My opponent has yet to prove that Satan is a god without using, over and over again, the same definition that he got from dictionary.com, which is irrelevant in this debate." In this debate, we are both speaking English, no? So, as long as we are going to be on the same page by speaking with the REAL meaning of words, provided by the dictionary, which you said yourself was reliable for looking up the definitions of words. We are not speaking some made-up language created by the bible, we are speaking *English*. I am accurately using an English word to describe a Christian concept. You state that it is absurd to use this accurate word to describe it, but once more, I am speaking English. My opponent stated that: "since we are discussing Christianity here, it is perfectly acceptable to use truths known of the Bible. Do not tell me that it is irrelevant, because it is completely relevant to this debate." I am not saying that it is irrelevant at all. In fact, I think it is very important to acknowledge that one of the truths known to the bible is that angels are spiritual entities who have supernatural abilities in the physical world. Oh wait, the word for that is "god". "Saying that God and Satan are both gods would totally change the whole entire meaning behind Christianity." That false, the meaning would stay the same. Only the wording would change. Satan, being an angel, is a supernatural entity. Satan, as a god, is a supernatural entity. Same meaning... different wording. "I continue to be dumbfounded as to what is so hard to understand about how you cannot use the definition of other religions' gods to describe Christianity." And I continue to be dumbfounded as to what is so hard to understand about accurately using a word to describe something which perfectly fits it's definition. Let's say there is a recipe for something which includes the ingredient "Rocket". Well, this so happens to be another term for the plant "Arugula". They mean the same thing. Let's say that I am listing the ingredients of the dish to someone later, and I tell them that it contains Arugula. Would I be false in saying that? No. Even though the recipe does not call it Arugula, Arugula is an English word which describes the same thing as Rocket. They have the same meaning. Is this really very hard to understand? It is not false for me to state that Lucifer is an entity which has power in the physical world, and it is therefore not false for me to say that he is a god. Language is a means to an end, and therefore you need to stop focusing so much on what of the many synonyms I choose to use, and try to understand the MEANING of my argument. "I am still anxiously awaiting my opponents' clear, concrete proof from a reliable source that proves that Satan is a god." Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god Date: before 12th century 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind ********2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality********* 3: a person or thing of supreme value 4: a powerful ruler (merriam-websters) Ok, we have agreed that Satan fits that criteria, and therefore the term "Satan is a god" is correct, since he IS a god, according the that definition of god. But despite whether you wish to call it a god or an angel, it means the same thing, and Christianity is indeed a polytheistic religion.