Before proceeding on addressing your objections, I think it would be helpful to provide some context (which are in the links I shared in the OP above). I'm scrutinizing the substack author's (and his sources) attempt to stretch the definition of "Monotheism" to something that is inclusive of a pantheon of "small-g gods." Here he is quoting the arguments of one of his main sources, the scholar Michael Frede:
[A]s far as the question whether there is one God or whether there are many gods is concerned, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between the Christian position and the position of Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and their followers and thus the vast majority of philosophers in Late Antiquity.
[T]he Platonists, the Peripatetics, and the Stoics do not just believe in one highest god, they believe in something which they must take to be unique even as a god. For they call it “God” or even “the God",” as if in some crucial way it was the only thing which deserved to be called god. If, thus, they also believe that there are further beings which can be called “divine” or “god",” they must have thought that these further beings could be called “divine” only in some less strict, diminished, or derived sense. [Likewise], the Christians themselves speak not only of the one true God, but also of a plurality of beings which can be called “divine” or “god”; for instance, the un-fallen angels or redeemed and saved human beings.
This is just a small snippet; I think the rest of the argument is well presented in the article. My only real addition here was calling into question the idea that "Monotheism" would be an appropriate label for the ecumenical position being argued above.
Otherwise, I would agree that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of God or "a god" and that attempts at metaphysical ecumenism often carry imperialistic undertones. I think the project the author is seeking out may be an attempt to create an interpretatio centered around his own philosophical views, for better or worse.
no subject
Before proceeding on addressing your objections, I think it would be helpful to provide some context (which are in the links I shared in the OP above). I'm scrutinizing the substack author's (and his sources) attempt to stretch the definition of "Monotheism" to something that is inclusive of a pantheon of "small-g gods." Here he is quoting the arguments of one of his main sources, the scholar Michael Frede:
This is just a small snippet; I think the rest of the argument is well presented in the article. My only real addition here was calling into question the idea that "Monotheism" would be an appropriate label for the ecumenical position being argued above.
Otherwise, I would agree that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of God or "a god" and that attempts at metaphysical ecumenism often carry imperialistic undertones. I think the project the author is seeking out may be an attempt to create an interpretatio centered around his own philosophical views, for better or worse.