Martin Luther had an interesting take on the subject.  He wrote that a god is "that to which your heart clings and entrusts itself."  In other words, whatever you trust in is your god.  That could be a spiritual being, material possessions, another person, or even yourself.

That's a very nice sentiment, but it doesn't seem to be the way we normally use the word "god".  A god is usually taken to be a being of some sort that has absolute or near-absolute power over some aspect of physical reality.  One might treat a lover as a god metaphorically, but I'm asking for a more literal definition of the concept.

I think this relates well to your question, because although you wish to distinguish between spiritual beings, I do not think that there are necessarily  characteristics which differentiate all of them.  That wouldn't really be the point anyways.  The term "god" is merely a title.  Satan may be "god" to some people.  Mary might be "god" to others.  Money is the "god" of many.  My vote goes to Jesus.   

In my experience, Christians deny that Satan and the Virgin Mary are literal gods.  We should not confuse metaphorical usage with literal usage.

One obvious factor (as you've probably already assumed) is that Christianity at least doesn't believe that the other gods are real, although, this doesn't hold true for all religions.  But in a nutshell, I think what really makes God "God" (as you define it), is that He has all the power.  "Sovereign" is a nifty theological term used to describe this.  "Holy" is another word that applies here.  In Hebrew, "holy" means "separate" or "different."  Our God is completely holy because He is different from anything else.  There is nothing to compare to Him because nothing else exists that is like Him.  Satan and angels may have SOME power beyond our human capabilities, but ultimately they answer to Yahweh.

It is not necessary to believe that gods exist in order to have a clear concept of what gods are.  Christians are no different from atheists in that respect.  Both understand what pagans mean when they speak of their "gods".  It would be impossible for Christians to interpret the first commandment if they didn't have some way of distinguishing their god from other gods.  So I am talking about the same concept of "god" here that God himself refers to in the first commandment.  What did God mean when he commanded us not to worship other gods?  What kinds of entities was he referring to?

The most reasonable assumption is that the word "elohim" referred to entities that ancient semitic speakers thought of as supernatural entities.  Martin Luther, the extreme antisemite, wasn't around back then to correct their misrepresentations. 

Technically, Rare is right about the idea of a god being any thing one chooses to serve.  Thus, atheists believe in god- that is, they answer only to themselves.  Nothing dangerous about that.    The first commandment is consistent with Rare's suggestion on that.  I think I will rather agree with Cop's POV, at least for this thread, when he says, "It is not necessary to believe that gods exist in order to have a clear concept of what gods are."

I think Cop should recognize that Rare is reflecting a particular Christian pov on the subject, even if Cop has never heard it put that way.  It may help inform some other questions.  On the other hand, I don't think we should lose the opportunity to try to clear up this concept for Cop.

So, in the first place, Cop, when you say "That's a very nice sentiment, but it doesn't seem to be the way we normally use the word "god" I don't really think you are in a position to speak to that.  Even in this thread you have chosen to consider 'Elohim' as being just one in a pantheon.   Your idea of what a 'normal use' is is much different than what the monotheists mean.  Your idea of 'god' is like Superman, or Spiderman.  Would not this be:  "A god is usually taken to be a being of some sort that has absolute or near-absolute power over some aspect of physical reality."

This may be a poverty in language in relation to the word 'god' but you are allegedly a linguist, dang it, so you'll pardon me if I have the expectation that you should already know this.     Yes, we use the word 'god' when we speak about the Greek pantheon... 'Zeus,' etc, and we use it when talking about 'Baal,' and even in some sense 'El' in other semitic regions (notice that 'El' and 'Elohim' are different).  These 'gods' are like Superman of comic-book lore.

They are not at all what is meant by Christians and Jews, and as far as I know, the Muslims.

Quoting from "The Old Testament Against Its Environment" we find this in a summary statement on this very question in regards to the OT:

"The God of Israel so transcends all things in heaven and earth that he is conceived as their sole creator.  The members of his assembly, the belief in which is a survival or borrowing from polytheism, possess no independent authority or even existence or worship.  Their being and authority are derived, not primary.  The believer is led by them to the worship of their source, yahweh;  THEY are thorougly devaluated while he is exalted.."  pg 38 ff. 

This come in the midst of a longer passage that justly deserves more mention, but it serves well.  He concludes, in contrast to your contention:

"that the word "elohim" referred to entities that ancient semitic speakers thought of as supernatural entities"

that

"This doctrine, so offensive to the naturalist and mystic of every age, is precisely the one which raised the problem for Israel of the relation between the revealed religion and the mythopoeic naturalism of the surrounding peoples.  The problem of 'other gods' was thus acute for Israel in a way not comprehensible to the naturalistic polythiest."

You are treading untenable ground in trying to reduce OT theism to a monolatry where the 'god' of Israel is of the same sort, definitionally, as the 'gods' in the surrounding region.

I have begun reading Dawkin's Delusion and noticed a disconnect on this very point.   I'll try to leave the worst that I could say out, but give you his definition of 'god' for his hypothesis:

"there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

A 'super-human' ?  Shall we presume by this that he only is speaking in relative terms in regards to intelligence, or is he really suggesting that the thing he wishes to debunk is 'super-human'?  Its hard to tell, because immediately preceding we read:

"I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus, or Wotan."

So, the man really thinks that 'Yahweh' and 'Zeus' are in the same category.  He appears to think that Christians believe this.  Later, in his section on 'monotheism' he retains this equivocation but attempts to explain a more fleshed out version that will fit the 'Abrahamic God.'

"He not only created the universe;  he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that may mean), possessing the unpleasantly human qualities to which I have alluded."  (emph. mine)

It is the 'outside' it that stands as one of one of the profound differences and distinctions and the man misses it!  I'll spare the full review, but the man begins his rebutting of theism without hardly any more development of 'God' then this.  Thus, he turns to Aquainas's arguments for 'God' while thinking, laughably, that Aquinas is arguing for Baal by another name.

So, ok.  This is the problem.  Dawkins is not the only person who cannot understand this problem.  I think Dawkins ought not write books if he's going to launch based on such woeful ignorance, but ok.  And in some ways, I think that the average skeptic or person on the street is not to be blamed, because Christians have not done a very good job, in general, in discussing the matter.  (But Dawkins has no excuse because he appears to have read people that took pains to offer a definition.  Perhaps he has a reading disorder), let me offer just a few distinctions:

The God of Christianity (monotheism) is:

1.  non-contingent.

It is uncreated.  It is eternal.  Everything that is exists by its will, energy, and out of its essence.     Even Dawkins allows that something is non-contingent:  "It is more parsimonius to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity,' or some other physical concept as yet unknown" to serve as the thing that is non-contingent.  (pg 78).  Fine- we are all agreed that something exists, non-contingent.  [snip ad hominem on Dawkins]

2.  Trancedental.

This is the 'exists outside' thing that apparently baffles Dawkins so much he cannot even factor this into his later discussions.   'God,' the entity defended by Christianity, is related to his creation not the way a circle is related to a sphere [dimensionally], but more like an author is related to its creation- think Hamlet's relation to Shakespeare.  Thus the 'logos.'

3.  Immanent.

Dorothy Sayers is correct when she points out that theologians are unhelpful when they present the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, because strictly speaking, the universe was not created out of nothing- given #1, the universe would have to have been created out of God.  Compare/Contrast the Demiurge creating the universe out of chaotic material.   Not even the same thing.  The universe was created out of God, thus in some sense his essence pervades all of this creation and any other.  [See John 1:1, Heb 1:1]

Given these three things, Francis Collins, I noted, was able to have it dawn on him that one could not have 'empirical' evidence, per se, of God, because strictly speaking, everything that exists exists out of his essence, and more importantly, what exists is not identical with the summation of this being- this being is trancendental AND immanent.  Compare/Contrast general Hinduism where brahma=the universe, ie, immanence, no trancendentalism.  In Collins book he notes that this being will not be 'scientifically detectable.'

That is not to say that there won't be evidence, just that the evidence we may seek won't be the sort typically found in labs.  This is an opportunity for one more jab at Dawkins, who goes after Gould (I also recommend picking on dead people) and this quote:

"The net, or magisterium, of science covers the empirical realm:  what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory).  The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.  These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisteriusm of art and the meaning of beauty [sntjohnny:  and the magisterium of historical inquiry].  To cite the old cliches, sicence gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages;  science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven."

Gould says this mainly because he understands the nature of the question, God with parameters #1-3 above.  Its not an empirical question.  Technically speaking, our empirical reality is permeated with the substance of God.  Monotheism does not propose that Elohim is sitting on planet Krypton out there somewhere.  When Collins comes to this understanding, he realizes that science cannot strictly speak to the question of monotheism.  But Dawkins protests:

"I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.  Even if hard to test in practice, ... God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice."

How can it possibly, even conceivably, be a scientific hypothesis, under any normal usage of the word 'science'?  It can't.  Dawkins thinks that 'god' and 'gods' are little super-powered entities running around that perhaps would be uncoverable through careful empirical inquiry.

In fact, God as Christians and Jews understand him, cannot be 'discovered.'  God must reveal himself.  Thus, none of this means that there is no evidence for the existence of God.  It just means that direct empirical inquiry won't provide that evidence.  You'll have to look to other sources.  Sometimes life just sucks that way.

I think Cop should recognize that Rare is reflecting a particular Christian pov on the subject, even if Cop has never heard it put that way.  It may help inform some other questions.  On the other hand, I don't think we should lose the opportunity to try to clear up this concept for Cop.

The quasi-pantheistic definition is not an uncommon way to define God, and Dawkins provided a great comment from Steven Weinberg on this subject:

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him.  One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or God is the universe.'  Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like.  I you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

So, in the first place, Cop, when you say "That's a very nice sentiment, but it doesn't seem to be the way we normally use the word "god" I don't really think you are in a position to speak to that.  Even in this thread you have chosen to consider 'Elohim' as being just one in a pantheon.   Your idea of what a 'normal use' is is much different than what the monotheists mean.  Your idea of 'god' is like Superman, or Spiderman.  Would not this be:  "A god is usually taken to be a being of some sort that has absolute or near-absolute power over some aspect of physical reality."

Not quite, I take "elohim" to be the conventional plural of 'el'--the semitic word for 'god' in general, and the name for the chief god of the semitic pantheon.  It is a linguistic reflex of the modern 'Allah' in Arabic.  Filtered through later ages, when the Jewish nation had come to adopt a purer form of monotheism, the plural became something of an embarrassing legacy.  So it came to be reinterpreted as the singular form for 'God'.  'El', of course, had been something of a rival to 'Yahwe', before scriptural borrowings produced a syncretism.  Hence, Ugaritic polytheistic religious texts had roughly verbatim renditions of the Psalms, except that "Yahwe" appeared to have replaced "El" in the Hebrew versions. Ultimately, 'El' and 'Yahwe' came to be interpreted as synonyms for "God" in the Hebrew literature.

This may be a poverty in language in relation to the word 'god' but you are allegedly a linguist, dang it, so you'll pardon me if I have the expectation that you should already know this.     Yes, we use the word 'god' when we speak about the Greek pantheon... 'Zeus,' etc, and we use it when talking about 'Baal,' and even in some sense 'El' in other semitic regions (notice that 'El' and 'Elohim' are different).  These 'gods' are like Superman of comic-book lore.

The word 'elohim' refers to the 'sons of El' or that Canaanite pantheon in the regional pagan literature.  Nobody disputes that the form is plural or that it was used by Canaanites to refer to their pantheon, only that the meaning is plural in the Hebrew tradition, whose scripture seems to overlap with Canaanite scripture.  The form is taken by many scholars as evidence that the earliest records of the Yahwist cult were henotheistic rather than monotheistic.  I see no reason to disagree with that assessment, especially in light of the fact that El became a synonym for Yahweh in some sections of the OT.

You are treading untenable ground in trying to reduce OT theism to a monolatry where the 'god' of Israel is of the same sort, definitionally, as the 'gods' in the surrounding region.

I'm not the only one who treads this ground.  It is tenable ground in the eyes of many scholars, just not those with a religious axe to grind.

I have begun reading Dawkin's Delusion and noticed a disconnect on this very point.   I'll try to leave the worst that I could say out, but give you his definition of 'god' for his hypothesis:

"there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

This is slightly different from the theme of this thread, which is about gods in general, not just the Christian god.  Dawkins explicitly acknowledged that fact when he gave his definition.  He was talking about a general monotheistic conception of god--what most people think that atheists reject--not the generic label 'god'.

A 'super-human' ?  Shall we presume by this that he only is speaking in relative terms in regards to intelligence, or is he really suggesting that the thing he wishes to debunk is 'super-human'?  Its hard to tell, because immediately preceding we read:

"I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus, or Wotan."

So, the man really thinks that 'Yahweh' and 'Zeus' are in the same category.  He appears to think that Christians believe this.  Later, in his section on 'monotheism' he retains this equivocation but attempts to explain a more fleshed out version that will fit the 'Abrahamic God.'

No, he does not 'appear to think' that Zeus and Yahweh are in the same category in the minds of Christians.  They are in the same category in Dawkins' mind, because the monotheistic god is like the chief god in a polytheistic pantheon.  The monotheistic god just lacks a pantheon.  He does point out that Christianity has some very strong polytheistic tendencies, an opinion that Muslims tend to share.  This is especially true of Catholicism, which has a rich pseudopantheon of saints and angels, not to mention a virtual goddess in the form of Mary. 

"He not only created the universe;  he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that may mean), possessing the unpleasantly human qualities to which I have alluded."  (emph. mine)

It is the 'outside' it that stands as one of one of the profound differences and distinctions and the man misses it!  I'll spare the full review, but the man begins his rebutting of theism without hardly any more development of 'God' then this.  Thus, he turns to Aquainas's arguments for 'God' while thinking, laughably, that Aquinas is arguing for Baal by another name.

He doesn't "miss it".  He merely points out that it isn't clear what it could mean to say that God is "outside" the universe.  Aquinas, in fact, could be arguing for Baal with the same arguments.  In the Achaemenid empire, it was not uncommon for the chief gods of subject peoples to be elevated to monotheistic status.  For example, Marduk was also described as the creator of the universe at one point.  Would worshippers of Baal or Marduk have argued that he existed "outside the universe"?  Certainly.  Why not?  You make a big deal about this split hair, but you don't actually explain the significance that you think it has.

So, ok.  This is the problem.  Dawkins is not the only person who cannot understand this problem.  I think Dawkins ought not write books if he's going to launch based on such woeful ignorance, but ok.  And in some ways, I think that the average skeptic or person on the street is not to be blamed, because Christians have not done a very good job, in general, in discussing the matter.  (But Dawkins has no excuse because he appears to have read people that took pains to offer a definition.  Perhaps he has a reading disorder), let me offer just a few distinctions:

So far, you have blown a lot of smoke, but not produced any fire.  What you call "woeful ignorance" is nothing more than your quibble with his wording. 

The God of Christianity (monotheism) is:

1.  non-contingent.

It is uncreated.  It is eternal.  Everything that is exists by its will, energy, and out of its essence.     Even Dawkins allows that something is non-contingent:  "It is more parsimonius to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity,' or some other physical concept as yet unknown" to serve as the thing that is non-contingent.  (pg 78).  Fine- we are all agreed that something exists, non-contingent.

So?  Any creator god could be ipso facto non-contingent.  Dawkins' point was the well-worn observation that physical reality itself can be taken as non-contingent.  You don't need to posit a god in order to deal with the 'regress' problem that Aquinas was worried about.  While quibbling over Dawkins' words, you actually miss his central point, which is to address a class of arguments for God's existence that depend on the notion of regress.

2.  Trancedental.

This is the 'exists outside' thing that apparently baffles Dawkins so much he cannot even factor this into his later discussions.   'God,' the entity defended by Christianity, is related to his creation not the way a circle is related to a sphere [dimensionally], but more like an author is related to its creation- think Hamlet's relation to Shakespeare.  Thus the 'logos.'

It isn't at all clear what it means to say that God is 'outside' reality.  Just because you toss around the word 'transcendental', that doesn't mean that you have a coherent grasp of it.  You yourself don't even believe that God is entirely separate from physical reality, since reality is part of God in your view.  Your metaphor with Hamlet is just an analogy, not some super significant fact that would be relevant to Dawkins' critique of Aquinas.

3.  Immanent.

Dorothy Sayers is correct when she points out that theologians are unhelpful when they present the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, because strictly speaking, the universe was not created out of nothing- given #1, the universe would have to have been created out of God.  Compare/Contrast the Demiurge creating the universe out of chaotic material.   Not even the same thing.  The universe was created out of God, thus in some sense his essence pervades all of this creation and any other.  [See John 1:1, Heb 1:1]

This matter appears to be a dispute between theologians that doesn't concern Dawkins.  Dawkins does point out that it is a gratuitous assumption that there ever was a period of time when material reality did not exist.  Once you make that assumption, you have to come up with an explanation of how or why physical reality appeared ex nihilo.  He was only discussing Aquinas' need to terminate regress by the device of positing a god.  If you are going to terminate or "anchor" the regress, one does not need God to do it. 

Given these three things, Francis Collins, I noted, was able to have it dawn on him that one could not have 'empirical' evidence, per se, of God, because strictly speaking, everything that exists exists out of his essence, and more importantly, what exists is not identical with the summation of this being- this being is trancendental AND immanent.  Compare/Contrast general Hinduism where brahma=the universe, ie, immanence, no trancendentalism.  In Collins book he notes that this being will not be 'scientifically detectable.'

I loved the way that Dawkins poked holes in this pretension.  Any being that interacts with physical reality is subject to empirical investigation.  Religious folks are always trying to come up with evidence for his existence, and miracles are the claimed type of evidence that fits the bill.  Dawkins quite correctly pointed out that, if such evidence ever did turn up, none of those religious advocates who now proclaim science's irrelevance would pooh-pooh THAT evidence.  They are only looking for a handy excuse to ignore the fact that there is no reliable evidence to support God's existence at the moment.  He had a good time with a double-blind study that was intended to discover whether prayer had an effect on hospital patients' chances of recovery.  There was no correlation in populations that were prayed for or not, when those populations were not informed that they were being prayed for.  There was actually a NEGATIVE correlation in a population that was informed that they were being prayed for!  Recovery was less likely.  Of course, everyone had to scramble to explain that outcome. 

The point was that people actually believe that God's existence is an empirical issue even when they claim that they don't believe it.

That is not to say that there won't be evidence, just that the evidence we may seek won't be the sort typically found in labs.  This is an opportunity for one more jab at Dawkins, who goes after Gould (I also recommend picking on dead people) and this quote:

Forgive me, sntjohnny, but I must be having a false memory of you going after the dear departed Bertrand Russell.    Dawkins gave extensive treatment to Gould's NOMA concept:  Non-overlapping Magisteria.

Gould says this mainly because he understands the nature of the question, God with parameters #1-3 above.  Its not an empirical question.  Technically speaking, our empirical reality is permeated with the substance of God.  Monotheism does not propose that Elohim is sitting on planet Krypton out there somewhere.  When Collins comes to this understanding, he realizes that science cannot strictly speak to the question of monotheism.

There is more than one brand of monotheism.  You are speaking too broadly here.  When God is conceived of as a being that causes miracles to happen, it is legitimate to treat his existence as an empirical question.  Nothing you say here has the slightest bearing on that fact.

But Dawkins protests:

"I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.  Even if hard to test in practice, ... God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice."

How can it possibly, even conceivably, be a scientific hypothesis, under any normal usage of the word 'science'?  It can't.  Dawkins thinks that 'god' and 'gods' are little super-powered entities running around that perhaps would be uncoverable through careful empirical inquiry.

Dawkins goes into great detail on precisely why it is a scientific hypothesis.  One of his points is that it becomes one the moment anyone speaks of a supernatural 'miracle', which is a physical event.  The question of whether miracles exist is very much a scientific question, and the religious faithful do treat those miracles as hard evidence for God's existence.  The NOMA advocates usually end up talking out of both sides of the mouth.

In fact, God as Christians and Jews understand him, cannot be 'discovered.'  God must reveal himself.  Thus, none of this means that there is no evidence for the existence of God.  It just means that direct empirical inquiry won't provide that evidence.  You'll have to look to other sources.  Sometimes life just sucks that way.

A case in point.  In one breath, you claim that God cannot be discovered.  In the next you say that there might be evidence for God's existence.  In the next, you say that "direct" empirical enquiry cannot discover this evidence, reserving I guess the right of empirical enquiry to discover the evidence indirectly.  Both sides of the mouth.  You won't accept negative evidence for God's existence.  But, if positive evidence should turn up, you will be happy to acknowledge it.  That's exactly the kind of behavior that Dawkins was talking about.

sntj said:

Technically, Rare is right about the idea of a god being any thing one chooses to serve.  Thus, atheists believe in god- that is, they answer only to themselves.  Nothing dangerous about that.  Wink  The first commandment is consistent with Rare's suggestion on that.  I think I will rather agree with Cop's POV, at least for this thread, when he says, "It is not necessary to believe that gods exist in order to have a clear concept of what gods are."

Technically?  Ouch, that hurt johnny.

I don't know about Cop's statement there though.  If you believe something to be mythical, it would have to influence your point of view.  In addition, by reading other threads on this forum, it seems pretty clear that Cop does not have a clear concept of the Christian God at least.

Cop said:

1. I wasn't commenting on what the ancient semitic speakers thought, I was referring to what Yahweh meant when he spoke the words.

As reported by those ancient semitic speakers.  Yahwe's words were recorded in ancient Hebrew (and later, Aramaic), were they not?  This is not a reasonable objection.

For one, I don't think you've made a case that the ancient semitic speakers thought differently from what I am implying.  Secondly, I was merely stating that these are the words Yahweh said.  Those words are not inconsistent with the view I've been describing, even if people did not interpret them as such.

2. I quoted Luther but I don't believe the idea was originally his.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'm not sure that it really matters.

It certainly does matter if people have viewed gods this way throughout history.

My criticism remains the same.  The word "god" means what people conventionally use it to mean.  I am interested in how people conceive of entities that they call "god".  The metaphorical interpretation doesn't really contribute much.  It is a bit like the "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" letter.  A very nice, sentimental message to send a young girl who was disappointed to discover that there was no literal Santa Claus, but the hard truth was still there underneath the text.  Santa Claus, as Virginia conventionally understood the man, did not exist.   He was a mythical being.  What she got in his place was fancy metaphor and no real substance.

I'm obviously not arguing that God/gods don't exist. Perhaps Santa Clause is simply a metaphor as you put it, but the spirit of giving is real, is it not?  Just because "god" denotes a title and not an actual being, it does not mean that there is not a being out there which holds that title.

3. Even if you accept my premise, I would still have to admit that the "gods" of most of those ancients were hypothetical supernatural entities.

Exactly so.

Well, I thought you'd call me on this sooner.

But there are "non-god" supernatural entities, as well.  So I was interested in how people distinguished between supernatural god-entities and supernatural non-god entities.

As my position has been here, those supernatural entities which are non-god are only so because no one has decided to worship them!  You mentioned Mary the mother of Jesus before.  There actually are people who worship her as god.  I forget the name, but there is a daughters of Mary or something like that.  So, she is "god" to some people.

Now, if you were to ask me from a Christian perspective why we worship Yahweh/Jesus and not the angel Gabriel, I think it goes back to my discussion about being "holy" and "sovereign."  The Christian God is unlike anything else, and there is nothing you could compare to Him (Sntjohnny hits this with his three distinctions).  You raise the question of other supernatural beings, but being supernatural in itself does not make something a god.

"The Christian God is unlike anything else, and there is nothing you could compare to Him (Sntjohnny hits this with his three distinctions)."

I don't want to over state that.  If it is the case that we are created in the image of this God, then we could draw some inferences from our own character and nature, especially in regards to modes of creation.  Shakespeare and Hamlet, again.  But you certainly can say that there is nothing qualitatively like him within our experience that you could compare to him.  Its just not possible, by definition.  Even the inferences that I'm referencing are 'images' and analogies.

You can make references and analogies perhaps, but as far as the full glory/holiness of God, there is nothing comparable.  That is part of what makes him God, I think, in relation to Cop's question.

Psalm 89:6
For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD ? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings?

Isaiah 40:18
To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?

Isaiah 46:5
To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?

You could express some ideas unique to God in words, but there wouldn't be anything on earth which was comparable.

"Not quite, I take "elohim" to be the conventional plural of 'el'--the semitic word for 'god' in general, and the name for the chief god of the semitic pantheon."

...I know immediately that I need to clarify this for you.   In brief, the God of Judaism and Christianity is monotheistic in the terms that I have laid out and have been laid out for thousands of years.    If I attacked evolution by presenting the theory as understood in Darwin's time rather than in modern terms, you would surely object.  It may be that in the OT they meant by 'god' something you propose (don't construe that as even entertaining the propsotion without there first being a slew of caveats), it would nonetheless remain that this is qualitatively different than 'God' as understood and presented by Christians for two thousand years, and the Jews for nearly three- even including your hypothesis.

Well, the "elohim" conundrum is a side issue anyway.  I looked in vain for some direct response to even that side issue, but you chose just to go on a little rant against me and my attitude.  So, I'll just repeat what you failed to refute.  The word "elohim" is grammatically plural.  Religious scholars have been troubled by this, and so they try to rationalize it by trying to associate it with that later use of the "Royal plural" and other devices.  At the end of the day, the most plausible conclusion is that the early Hebrews were henotheistic or monolatrous.  You may find this troubling because you take the Bible much more literally than perhaps most Christians do.

"This is slightly different from the theme of this thread, which is about gods in general, not just the Christian god."

In that case, then, this thread is not about the Christian 'god' at all, because what God means within Christianity is wholly different.   To put it bluntly:   What Christians mean by 'god' is so utterly different than what is meant in polytheistic, etc, systems, that it does not justly belong to this thread at all.  See below.

This thread is not just about the Christian god, but I don't understand why you find this such a stunning revelation.  Did you not read the OP?  Atheism rejects the existence of all gods, not just yours.  In fact, Christianity has elements of polytheism in it.  This is not surprising, since it needed to appeal to polytheists to attract converts from polytheistic systems.  Mohammed, writing a few centuries after monotheism had become more firmly entrenched in the region, was able to mount a purer form of monotheism to attract his followers.  The question in this thread is what makes something qualified to be called a 'god'.  Certainly, the Christian God is a type of 'god'.  I am by no means claiming that there is no difference between your god and others.

"Dawkins explicitly acknowledged that fact when he gave his definition.  He was talking about a general monotheistic conception of god--what most people think that atheists reject--not the generic label 'god'."

No, that's not true.  Here are some quotes:

More cherrypicking. 

"Having gestured towards polytheism to cover myself against a charge of neglect, I shall say no more about it.  For brevity I shall refer to all deities, whether poly- or monotheistic, as simply 'God.'"  Pg 35

There is clearly equivocation going on there.

You lifted this out of a section in which Dawkins was explaining why he wouldn't be talking directly about those kinds of gods.  Look at the quote itself:  "Having gestured toward..." should give you a clue that he is writing off polytheistic gods as something that he was not going to focus on.  And he was certainly not addressing the topic of this thread--what it means to use the word 'god' to apply to such a wide variety of beings.  He just threw all those gods into the 'supernaturalism' bucket and moved on to the more relevant idea of a creator god.

On the very next page (p. 36), Dawkins wrote: 

...I decry supernaturalism in all its forms, and the most effective way to proceed will be to concentrate on the form most likely to be familiar to my readers--the form that impinges most threateningly on all our societies. Most of my readers will have been reared in one or another of today's three 'great' monotheistic religions (four if you count Mormonism), all of which trace themselves back to the mythological patriarch Abraham, and it will be convenient to keep this family of traditions in mind throughout the rest of the book.

This is as good a moment as any to forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise--as sure as night follows day--turn up in a review: 'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is a God that I don't believe in either.  I don't believe in an old man in the sky with a long white beard.'  That old man is an irrelevant distraction and his beard is as tedious as it is long.  Indeed, the distraction is worse than irrelevent.  Its very silliness is calculated to distract attention from the fact that what the speaker really believes is not a whole lot less silly.  I know you don't believe in an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, so let's not waste any more time on that.  I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods.  I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.

That passage was tailor-made for your favorite claim--that atheists don't understand your god well enough to reject belief in his existence.  Dawkins certainly had your number on that one.

As reported by those ancient semitic speakers.  Yahwe's words were recorded in ancient Hebrew (and later, Aramaic), were they not?  T...

For one, I don't think you've made a case that the ancient semitic speakers thought differently from what I am implying.  Secondly, I was merely stating that these are the words Yahweh said.  Those words are not inconsistent with the view I've been describing, even if people did not interpret them as such.

First of all, you've not made the case that the ancient semitic speakers thought the same as you are implying.  It is not up to me to prove your undefended assertions wrong.  It is up to you to prove them right.  Your implication that the ancient authors of biblical text had a broader definition of their gods than their contemporaries lacks any support at all.  Secondly, you seem to forget that we only have words that human writers claimed Yahweh spoke.  When you say that the words are "not inconsistent" with your interpretation, you are hardly providing evidence to back up your claim.  You even admit that the people who wrote the language didn't necessarily share your interpretation.

I'm obviously not arguing that God/gods don't exist. Perhaps Santa Clause is simply a metaphor as you put it, but the spirit of giving is real, is it not?  Just because "god" denotes a title and not an actual being, it does not mean that there is not a being out there which holds that title.

Which title?  'God' or 'Santa Claus'?  I'm beginning to get confused over which beings whose existence you believe in. 

As my position has been here, those supernatural entities which are non-god are only so because no one has decided to worship them!  You mentioned Mary the mother of Jesus before.  There actually are people who worship her as god.  I forget the name, but there is a daughters of Mary or something like that.  So, she is "god" to some people.

She is definitely not a god in the Catholic religion, but people still seem to worship her.  I can't honestly see a difference between her and more traditional goddesses under polytheism.  She is thought to have powers to bring about changes in the physical world, and so do other saints.  What distinguishes such entities from bona fide lesser gods in a polytheistic tradition?  The point of worship seems to be the same--to get the target god to perform some beneficial act on behalf of the worshipper.  Gods are an ancient method that humans have always relied on to control their physical environment--to reduce the hostility and difficulty that we find everywhere in real life. So worship does seem to be an important ingredient to godhood.  It just doesn't help to explain why Mary doesn't make the cut as a bona fide goddess.

Now, if you were to ask me from a Christian perspective why we worship Yahweh/Jesus and not the angel Gabriel, I think it goes back to my discussion about being "holy" and "sovereign."  The Christian God is unlike anything else, and there is nothing you could compare to Him (Sntjohnny hits this with his three distinctions).  You raise the question of other supernatural beings, but being supernatural in itself does not make something a god.

Right, but neither does worship.  Saints and angels do seem to get a fair amount of that.  People fantasize that demons and angels struggle constantly over humans.  It just seems to me that monotheism is being paid lip service to by many Christians, who really do see the spiritual world as populated by beings that Romans and Greeks might have described conventionally as gods.