|
Post by Shannon on Feb 23, 2010 18:21:57 GMT -5
plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/Granted, this may be a bit out of context but the I'm posting some statements that interested me. Most mainstream Old Testament scholars believe that the religion of the early Israelites was neither monotheistic nor polytheistic but “monolatrous.” While the existence of other gods was not denied, Israel was to worship no god but Yahweh. In virtue of the Mosaic covenant, Yahweh became the “confederate god” of Israel, and they become his people (Meek, 215). In part, this is characteristic of any “national religion: in practice only the gods of one's own nation are significant.” Yet it was also unique, for “one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Israelite religion is the belief that there are not several gods of Israel but only one, Yahweh, who claims exclusive devotion.” In the first place, “we encounter very early the idea that Yahweh is the creator of heaven and earth.” (Ringgren, 67). Although it is true that polytheistic religions frequently include a creator in their pantheons, and these creators are often comparatively unimportant, there is a natural transition from the claim that a god has created heaven and earth to the belief that he or she is lord of heaven and earth, and from there to monotheism God is often thought to be simple in the sense that each of God's real properties is identical with each of his other real properties, and with his being or nature. For example, God's knowledge is identical with his power, and both are identical with his being. Just as “the teacher of Plato” and “the husband of Xanthippe” don't mean the same yet refer to the same individual (namely, Socrates), so “the wisdom of God” and “the power of God” have different meanings but refer to the same thing (namely, the infinitely perfect divine life or activity). If God is simple, however, it seems that there can be only one god. (Emphasis mine.) John of Damascus argued that because God is perfect, he is necessarily unique. The only way in which one god could be distinguished from another would be by coming “short of perfection in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place,” but in that case “he would not be God" --------- (Interesting. Can we truly see our polytheistic deities as Gods when they are fallible, imperfect and limited?) Source: Especially noteworthy is a phenomenon that sometimes occurs in polytheism, namely, that during worship the god is treated as if he or she were unlimited and supreme, and given epithets that properly belong to other members of the pantheon. (This occurred at certain stages of Vedic polytheism, for example.) More generally, the religious attitudes bound up with theistic worship (whether monotheistic or polytheistic) appear to have a certain inner logic, tending to lead the devotee to magnify the object of her devotion by denying limitations and adding perfections. The logical limit of this tendency is the ascription of such properties as universal sovereignty and unlimited power. The very same attitudes also tend to lead her to unreservedly commit herself to, and center her life on, the god to whom she is devoted. It is therefore no accident that polytheistic systems often end up elevating one god or principle to the supreme position, and reinterpreting the others as its agents or manifestations; they become, in other words, essentially monotheistic.(Emphasis mine.)
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Feb 24, 2010 0:43:37 GMT -5
Aaack...must...resist...no...can't...okokok!*straightens up* I wasn't going to post this late but Master Spinoza is standing behind me with a shotgun. And a little later: For those who haven't had a copy of Spinoza's Ethics surgically implanted yet (I neither confirm nor deny...), the relevant text can be found here. If it isn't obvious, these quotes come from Part I: Concerning God. Effectively, Spinoza, whose God is of a pantheistic flavor if not that exactly, argues in the Ethics that God must exist and that there is only one of Him. (I hasten to point out that Spinoza's choice of pronoun might well have been chosen with not-being-beheaded in mind.) Spinoza's argument is similar to the one in the OP article, that unless you divide your God into different areas and powers (Gods of wisdom and love and war and so on), or the sorts of things that Spinoza would call attributes, you're kind of stuck with only one. Now in many systems (not Spinoza's, however) you can have additional supernatural beings such as subordinate Gods or angels to do the different areas and powers; this seems to be how many modern Pagans, who grew up with monotheism and have trouble shaking it like a bad hangover, end up. I'll point out here that Spinoza stated explicitly, in a moment when that not-being-beheaded goal was somewhat less showcased, that angels and by extension other supplementary supernaturals were hallucinations. Part of what was going on was, Spinoza's God is not exactly what we'd call supernatural. While he was not beheaded for this offense (he died young because someone forgot to wind him up due to a lung ailment of undetermined nature), he was excommunicated from the Jewish community in Amsterdam "on the authority of the angels". Take that Mr. Spock. This is in fact the hold-up I have run into each and every time I attempt to become a hard polytheist, an attempt I have by now largely given up. My reasons for making the attempt in the first place were, I suspect, personal ones related to a desire to differentiate myself from the Christians. (I get awfully tired of that "all Gods are the same so you might as well be Christian" argument; point out the obvious leap of "faith" - or something - from the One God to all that Christian stuff about a virgin birth and a chosen Messiah, and you'll discover that logic will not avail you with those folks). I now recognize that any spirituality I follow is going to have to be one where your reason has a place at the table, so despite the fact that my reason has a boardinghouse reach, chews with its mouth open, drinks from the fingerbowl, sets fire to the tablecloth and in other ways indicates that it believes it is dining alone, I just avoid discussion with said Christians entirely rather than have to sit through that "your God is really a variant of mine" argument. Right now my own thoughts on the issue are a Spinozist sort of God, with any other apparent powers being due to principles and things. For me the angels thing might well work; I can relate to Gods or others as principles of this or that or whatever, and can even believe that the "normal healthy" human mind is capable of experiencing these things as external realities even though they aren't physical (i.e. they're "hallucinations" of a sort but you're not crazy, or at least, not on that basis alone), especially if the percipient sets out to have such an experience by meditating or doing a special ritual. This leaves me like other Pagans (and some other Heathens) in some senses but not in others: I can do the one-God-behind-it-all and not have that God be a stand-in for Jehovah, I can do the ceremonial-magicky rituals that call upon entities traditionally associated with the Abrahamic faiths without drinking the virgin-birth Kool-Aid or any of that, much like a "regular" Pagan; however, even after all those Woden things I can't quite do the my-Patron-is-my-true-image-of-the-Divine thing (especially with that "Deity fashion show" phenomenon! Gaaaahhh!!! ). At least not any more. Any image for that One comes out so... small.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Feb 24, 2010 9:57:48 GMT -5
Of course it's not impossible. There are several of us who manage it very well, thankyouverymuch. As I have neither the time nor inclination to read the whole thing, I'm only responding to the bits that you've quoted... While reading this I am reminded of some of Gnostic thought... and that he who claimed to be the creator, the Demiurge, was actually cut off from the true source of Creation, and was basically on a, quite literal, "god-trip" that was faulty and undeserved. As I see the story of Israel, it basically started out with the "my god is stronger than your god" to "my god is the only god". I see this as a type of fallacious thought, not as the natural progression or evolution of spirituality/religion as some people see it. What they seem to forget in the whole schtick is that Jehovan came from a pagan pantheon, and then was elevated by the Israelites because of what he did for them... but, of course, this is also reason why their god is not my god. I have no covenant with Jehovah and am not bound to his rules and strictures or temper tantrums. Which is not to say that I do not, also, believe in an overarching 'One that is All', whether it be called the Totality, the Tao, or whatever else. But the god of the Bible is not this god, nor are the gods with whom I interact. They may be pieces of the Whole, but that does not make them the Whole, nor does it make them "not real" - unless you hold that we, also, are not real, for what are we but fragments ourselves? Wow, there are an awful lot of assumptions in this whole thing. If God is simple... If God is perfect... if the God they're referring to is even the God they are describing... But I disagree with the premise that "each of God's real properties is identical with each of his other real properties, and with his being or nature. For example, God's knowledge is identical with his power, and both are identical with his being." Someone's power and their knowledge are not identical. If they were identical than one would not be 'knowledge' and one would not be 'power'. My emotions are not the same as my reason - even if they occur in the same body. Frankly, I find this premise absurd. Furthermore - "Just as “the teacher of Plato” and “the husband of Xanthippe” don't mean the same yet refer to the same individual (namely, Socrates), " Again, while the two titles may refer to the same person, they do not necessarily refer to the same thing. I am the daugher to my parents, and the lover to my fiance. These both refer to me - but are the the same? Of course not - they are different roles, different 'parts' of the whole. In many ways, I am not the same person to my parents that I am to Darkk - and I don't even just mean in roles in this sense. We are different people to everyone, because we are, in a sense, their perceptions of us. All of these perceptions are flawed, but they are all true in their own way - and they are not interchangable. Circular reasoning. This is like saying the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is. It starts with the statement that God is perfect - but wherefore is the proof supporting the argument? Is the god of the Bible perfect? Howso? Because they say he is? I can point to contradictions in the Bible. I can point to where the god of the Old Testament (who I am not even convinced is the same as the god of the New Testament) says that he grieved and repented the evil he has done. (It's after the Flood, btw, for a bit of synchronicity.) Is this their perfect god? Is the Totality perfect? In what sense? In a moral sense? I see the Totality as amoral and so far removed from our sense of understanding as to be ludicrous to even try to approach it. There is a line in the Tao te Ching: 'The Way seems imperfect, and yet it is perfectly itself." It is perfect in the sense that it is what it is... but perfect in virtue, in morals, in perception? From whose standpoint? From its? From ours? A lot of bullshit is justified in the notion of a perfect God... and so nothing he can do is wrong, no matter how seemingly heinous. It's part of God's place, and so can not be wrong. But, as I've already pointed out, the god of the Old Testament has admitted to being wrong. (Not to mention that he got outrun by chariots once upon a time.) So not the god of the Bible, then? So then - who? Or What? Brahman? The Tao? Are these concepts really the same as what Christians mean when they talk of their perfect God? No, the whole argument presumes that their God is the correct, perfect God, and goes from there. It's a flawed premise, thus all conclusion drawn from it are equally flawed. --------- Of course we can. "We" have been doing so for a very long time. It all depends on your definition of god. If your definition of god is "infallible, perfect, and omniscient" then, no, my gods are not "gods" (but, then, nor is theirs until they can prove to me their claims.) But then there is: " 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" (emphasis mine). But, then, according to their definition to be pagan is to be an irreligious hedonist, but I hardly consider myself a hedonist. Nor am I a country dweller. Nor am I merely a non-Christian. I will not define myself based on not being them, nor will I define my gods based on their particular (and logically flawed) notions. Well, really, when you're dealing with a being who could, theoretically, kill you quite easily, you do tend to suck up a bit. *snerks* I'm not sure the Hinduism is the perfect example, at least not if we're discussing hard polytheism, because Hinduism, at least certain branches of it, are rather pantheistic in the notion that it is believe that all of the gods are emanations/manifestations of the Brahman. It is, in many ways, the origin of the "all gods are one God" theorum, since all the gods lead back to Brahman in one way or another, and there seems to often be a good deal of mixing and matching involved. In other words, Vedic Hinduism is monistic and/or pantheistic moreso than polytheistic - it is, therefore, a biased example used precisely because it favors the point being made. See what I said above about sucking up. *grins* More seriously, though, I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Granted, I don't know the ins and outs of others beliefs, nor do I know how it was in the good old days... but I do know a few polytheists who do not, from what I know of them, seem to do this at all. They seem quite aware of their patrons limitations. I would not pray to the Silver Lady to stop the rain... nor would I expect her to be at her full power during the day. But, then, I have half a brain... A lot of the history of elevating your personal god over other gods has less to do with religion of any kind and more to do with politics. "I am the emperor and my god is the most badass fucking god, and they all kowtow to my god, just as you will kowtow to me, and don't you forget it!" "Our god is the most powerful and we will totally invade your country, rape your women, kill your children, and take your land." But, even when the emperor or pharaoh or whoever elevated their particular best bud to Supreme God status, it was often dangerous to try and take the people's gods away from them. Just ask Akhenaten's monotheistic Ra. Besides, henotheism is not the same as monotheism, anyway... particularly in the sense that monotheism seems to have this nasty tendency to not allow other people to believe as they wish to believe which is, imo, proof enough that it is not the more enlightened system of belief.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 24, 2010 10:20:35 GMT -5
Awesome replies. I think I instinctively wanted to prove the OP's premise all wrong. But the idea that one God tends to be elevated and creates a monotheistic (tho, as BR pointed out, more henotheistic) worship seemed inarguable. We see it all the time in paganism with Patron Deities. (We see alot of past religious hold-overs in paganism, but thats a different thread.) There is also the popular idea of a One. But here is where I think the One provides proof that polytheism must exist, rather than rebutting it. If the One were an intelligent and conscious being, then he would have to assign value and qualify things. You can't do this without separating that thing from yourself. God cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. if he's a cognizant being. He, too, becomes a piece of the whole; a polytheistic being. Now there are two. God and the One.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Feb 24, 2010 11:19:35 GMT -5
I've been thinking about this and I will doubtless think more necessitating a modification of my reply, and additional reply, or other polite way of adding more blather. However, here's one thing I see happening: ( deja vu ahead...just a warning...) We're going to (at this point we should just copy paste this part!) run into a few issues with definitions of words, particularly with this specific reply. First up, "worship". Gods, as we know, are things that are conventionally worshiped. Pagans worship because of spiritual impulses, because it's in fashion, to "suck up" as blackrose 1 puts it (an important motivation that is more common than one would think, even today), or out of habit. What is "worship"? Can one "worship" only Gods, or are other supernatural (for lack of a better term) beings appropriate for it? Does "worshiping" an entity automatically involve suggesting it is perfect, that it is infallible, or that it is synonymous with the Big-Ultimate-One-Thing that folks like Spinoza like to flap their gums about? Most Pagans and Heathens, I think, would tend to say no. However, a lot of "monotheists" (many people who think they are this actually aren't, but that's a whole nuther can o' worms) would tend to say yes - only the way they'd put it is that worship is only proper for "God", who is perfect and infallible and omnipotent and usually synonymous with the One Being. They'd say worshiping other entities is the "sin" of idolatry (when I try to discuss this matter with such people the discussion usually gets bogged down in the fact that I don't believe in sin. I trust that is unlikely to happen here). If (big if!) I define "worship" as including the idea that an entity is synonymous with Big-Ultimate-One-Thing (though not saying anything about perfect or infallible - "perfect" in particular being another term that begs a definition), then, I tend to say that these other things are not appropriate for it; another way one could say that is that they are not Gods. (Using that idea one can honor these other beings but not worship them; one can also, obviously, invoke, though that's a bit different). But that depends on one's definition of God. If a "God" is something much more powerful than I or than anything else I might encounter in mundane life (I have to say that last, lest "Gods" include entities like the Government or the phone company), then certainly, all these Gods in all these pantheons definitely qualify as such. Woden, Athena, any of them, definitely could kick my ass, definitely could kick the Government's ass, and so forth. No arguments there. But then, so could Archangel Michael; why doesn't he get to be called a God? (The short answer is that he objects - but, can o' worms, can o' worms). Well, part of it of course is that we hear of that particular entity through the Abrahamic faiths, and those systems tend to insist that only one of these jokers gets to be a God. We call Michael an Archangel and Jehovah a God because someone told us to; we call Athena and Woden Gods and not angels because it said so in our mythology book. (Since "angel" means "messenger", that word would actually apply to an average of one or two Gods per pantheon. Wouldn't want to have that guy's job). It appears that past a certain point, what's a God and what's an angel and what's some other sort of supernatural being become matters of history, convention, and linguistic habit. Darn linguistic habit. That could kick anybody's ass. Maybe we should just invent a whole new word. Now of course, I'm completely passing over the fact that many of the lesser supernatural beings in the Abrahamic faiths in fact are Gods in other systems, that were stolen or assimilated upon conversion. But, can o' worms. If, on the other hand, you reserve the term "God" for the Big Thing, It becomes that huge universal that swallows up all other reality - All Your Gods Are Belong To Us - and the other things don't get to be Gods. Or Goddesses. And if you view the term "God" as male-gendered when it doesn't have a suffix, you're going to have a problem, because if the Big Ultimate is male you're going to need a whole separate tome to explain the existence of women. There's another problem with the Big Ultimate as an object of worship - it doesn't tend to reply. It is Just There. You might as well be talking to yourself. (Cue the atheists). Hence the tendency of systems that start out monotheistic to add other spiritual entities to act as intermediaries and messengers. Now, I'm quite aware there are Pagans (and more Heathens) who don't have a Big Ultimate at all. But that particular meme is one that once it has taken hold, is pretty hard to shake. This might be why so many Pagans seem to be faking it. I have no problem respecting both views - Big Ultimate with aspects or separate Gods that are not such aspects - so long as the speaker is intellectually honest about what s/he believes. Because ya gotta know yourself. That's been one of the big rules for a long time. Also, if you're going to claim any historicity for your views, back it up with real research, but remember your view of the universe is what it is and it doesn't have to match anyone else's, no matter how old and dead they are. Just be honest when it doesn't. (It is commonly believed that one's view of the universe can change as well - but from my vantage point it does so a lot less often than many people think, and that when it does, a "free-will-like" choice doesn't have anything to do with it. But again...) As far as the Big-Ultimate-With-Maybe-Some-Aspects meme goes, I pretty much stated in my previous post that I personally can't seem to shake it. This is likely the result of too much Kabalah, too much ceremonial magic dealing with those entities, and with joining esoteric orders that also deal with those entities. In short, the common blend of "Ceremonial Magic Using Angels and God-Names" and "Pagan Worship Involving Multiple Traditional Deities" doesn't work for the long term as well as some people would like; eventually, one or the other world view will likely take over. Now I do see the point in blackrose's post about different roles and names not meaning one is exactly the same, or completely different either; I have no problem with that. I just can't do the thing where the Big Everything concept goes away completely, and it often appears that the question as to whether to call it God or not is a matter of convention. (I haven't even touched on the number of times someone at Lodge or someplace has invoked "God" and I've been extremely uncomfortable, because I know that particular person is thinking of that Hebrew tribal God that got too big for its britches, but again, can o' worms). 1 Incidentally, blackrose, while we're on the picky-about-words topic, do you prefer your handle be capitalized or not during these discussions?
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Feb 24, 2010 11:54:29 GMT -5
I know a lot of Neopagans get squicky at the mention of the word "worship" because it has taken on the connotation of bowing and scraping and not questioning and generally being a mindless slave who is afraid to approach their god... I also admit that I am not without my own knee-jerk reaction against the word, and was actually tempted to edit out the part of the definition of god that included the word. But considering that it literally means "to pay reverence and homage" - I can not say that I don't "worship" in this sense (though probably not anywhere near as often as I ought.)
But I also pay reverence and homage to the fae in the woods outside my house, though I don't consider them gods, and the "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe" is probably a bit less so when dealing with, well, lesser spirits.
In many ways my gods are "just" spirits. Where does 'spirit' stop and 'god' start? This is a question I've asked myself multiple times, and I've never come up with a hard-and-fast rule... it's more a "you know it when you see it" thing. How awe inspired are you at a given time?
This, for me, is the crux of the matter. Are my 'gods' all-powerful? No... but they're there. And, in a way, I'm glad that they're no all-powerful because it makes them more approachable and more relatable - and, in a way, isn't that the whole point of the hierarchies and the intermediaries? Also, don't we just naturally relate more to those who are most like us? I am 'naturally' inclined, and so have an affinity for the wood spirits and whatnot... someone who may be more mechanstically inclined may not even notice their presence, or, if they do, may feel more a repulsion than an attraction. Reflections and resonances and affinities... spirals within spirals...
Anyway...
I am also uncomfortable when people make reference to God, because I know they're referring to their God, who I think of as their god... I also don't, personally, like to use the term God for the Totality because I find it just confuses the matter.
As to my name, I prefer it uncapitalized. :>
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 24, 2010 11:56:18 GMT -5
I don't think that, for me, worshiping a being suggests that it is in anyway perfect, but rather that it is superior. What makes them superior, and how does this superiority equal godliness? In my personal spirituality, these beings created order out of the All. They manipulated it, plied it, shaped it, and gave it purpose. The All is the beast, the Gods the master. I think in some cases there are beings who didn't create but are in service to the creation. These are a lower 'class' then the Gods. But still, superior to me. Sorry I haven't addressed all the points in your post yet. I'll get there.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Feb 24, 2010 12:13:15 GMT -5
Thanks. I like to get names right, especially when I interact with their bearers. That comes partly from being a ceremonial mage and partly from having been a chemistry teacher. It's interesting how we pick our Gods (angels, heroes, patrons, saints, spirits - I'm fond of puns involving those last and alcohol, another chemistry thing). For instance this: Whereas I tend to pick a God because It shows up and kicks my ass. No, that's not the only criterion. But there's a pattern. Care to guess who showed up to kick my ass about a month and a half ago? Obviously, someone I had been invoking for years (as in 25 of them), because the tradition said so, without really thinking about it. (Take-home message: always think about it.) If people like at some point I will write up the story, but I'm having my usual squick about telling the Internet how crazy I am and when I get over that it'll be a different post anyway. To get back on track: another criterion is that I have to sense the benefit of interacting with the entity in question - I have to see that It is good, for lack of a better term, that its objectives align with mine...damn, I really don't seem to have a way of putting this that doesn't make it sound like I am subjecting God/s to a job interview. I really don't mean it that disrespectfully. But you know. I think I often need the ass-whupping because it has to get past my skepticism, the ingrained suspicion that comes from growing up atheist. "You're a God? PROVE IT!!!"...I can attest from experience that this is not always such a smart thing to say. It can get difficult when one has a statement like that emblazoned on one's subconscious. That's pretty much the explanation it has on the tin. Seriously, though, if you try to call some beings Gods they will object to the designation, to your face. Generally these will not accept "worship" either. Fussy.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 24, 2010 12:50:41 GMT -5
One last thought before I run... I think if it weren't for the rule that there must be only one God, then Micheal, Gabriel, Uriel etc, would be Gods. And even then, couldn't the presence of angels be seen as proof of polytheism...why does God need helpers, messengers, why do these angels represent an aspect? What is the difference between that and Odin the All-father and the Aesir?
My idea of non-god superior beings are along the lines of nature spirits... rocks and trees of animism... that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Feb 24, 2010 13:02:16 GMT -5
'Zackly. The rules about what is what were made by all different systems, for all different purposes, a long time ago and now that they have entered our language that way it sounds ridiculous to call Michael, Gabriel, and Uriel Gods even if you're not a Christian. (This despite the fact that they are rather obviously public domain now and one could supposedly do so.) That, and the beings themselves ( please can I still balk at suggesting they have any external reality? No? There goes my self-respect... ) are quite honest about not being Gods, perhaps because the system they hail from doesn't call them such. There's also the language issue: the word "God" of course does not appear in many original texts, its place being taken by whatever the text writers (or other storytellers) used for a "supernatural", "divine", "powerful", or "supreme" being in their own language. And translation can be such a crap-shoot...
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 24, 2010 21:29:28 GMT -5
The more I think on this, the more I'm convinced that monotheism isn't the natural end result of religion, but that polytheism is the inherent outcome of belief. For all it's claims that it's a monotheistic religion, even Christianity has divided it's deity into three separate entities; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And no matter how they try to reason that it is one being, the majority make the unspoken distinction that it is three separate individuals. I can't even think of one instance in nature where one thing is a complete singularity, without equal or mate. In this case, God is an anomaly, and his existence abhorrent to the Universe. (Or so I say, till I'm sure to be proved wrong. )
|
|
|
Post by Denethor on Feb 25, 2010 1:02:09 GMT -5
Erm...so what would be the equal or mate to all of it? As in, all species, all things, all phenomena, all genders, the Everything including rather than opposed to the Nothing; Spinoza's idea (that man simply will not leave me alone) was that there was only one "substance", which was everything, and which thus was the only thing that could be a complete singularity, having no opposite.
Only problem with this is, of course, that that isn't the sort of concept most religious people want to pray to. You could celebrate It, but the "typical Christian" prayer (which a friend of mine summarizes as "Dear God, I've been bad, I'll be good, now give me what I want") doesn't go very far with such an abstract, almost mathematical deity. Not only did this get Master Spinoza into any and all sorts of trouble while he was living, it is also the basis of most people's objection to actually basing any sort of practice on his work (even a Quaker meeting has trouble finding justification in what is essentially a divine geometry theorem). Pagans, Christians, and just about anyone else who likes to feel they are interacting with their God - as in they want to talk to It, rather than just studying Its results/manifestation in the multiplicity known as Nature - will generally pick something else.
Which is odd because Spinoza is rumored to have been a member of an esoteric order, but whatevs.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Feb 25, 2010 9:19:06 GMT -5
Well, as far as we know there is only one Totality/Tao/Brahman/thing...
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on Feb 25, 2010 11:29:56 GMT -5
Yes, but the Totality or Everything is built by all things, while the concept of God is outside of things. He lords over creation, and with nothing he would supposedly still exist. Whereas the totality would be nothing if there were nothing.
|
|
|
Post by blackrose on Feb 25, 2010 12:27:00 GMT -5
Actually, the Totally encompasses both Being and Non-Being in my panentheistic view. (It's also true of the Taoist view and I think of the notion of the Brahman, but I'm not 100% sure about that one.) It is what was before there was anything...
The Totality includes all things and no things... both immanent within creation and transcendant of it.
|
|