A Proposal For Consideration.

[sophiaserpentia]

1. The idea that God is fundamentally and eternally superior to and separate from humankind, will inherently and inevitably lend support to the concept of fundamental superiorities within humankind, particularly those along the lines of gender, race, and economic status.

2. Furthermore, this idea will inherently and inevitably lend rhetorical justification for the use of violence as an acceptable means of promoting an agenda labeled as "holy."

crossposted to my journal and crossposted to convert_me

Comments

[pooperman.livejournal.com]

I'm having a similar discussion with jeffrock regarding "truth" instead of "God" at this time.

I agree totally with your assessment. I think the key to getting around it is to focus on the intersubjective rather than the subjective or objective.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

Yep, that's the problem in a nutshell

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that your "friend" at convert_me assumes this means you think people can merge with God in the future. He doesn't get it - that still states that there is a separation that will be healed. I personally would posit that God is already in all people RIGHT NOW, that they just keep themselves down by not realizing it.
Of course, I never bother talking to ariston because I think he's a jerk.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yep. There are two ways of opposing the idea that God and humanity are fundamentally separate. The first is to say say that they are not fundamentally separate; the second is to say that there is no God.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

What of the idea that God and humanity are presently separate, but not eternally and perhaps not even fundamentally?

I would assess this by evaluating the proposed reconciliation. Either the individual human plays an essential role in the reconciliation, or she does not.

The first case works out the same as saying that any "separation" is only misperception of the reality that no such separation really exists.

The second case works out the same as the original problematic assertion -- if God and only God is capable of "lifting up" a human, then there is still a fundamental rift and God is unquestionably superior.

[acheron-hades.livejournal.com]

(Excuse me following up to a pretty old comment..)

Interesting cosmological interpretation of this: the evolution of the universe is teleologically driven, and will eventually complete when the whole thing forms an extremely complicated single object at the end of time. The trajectory of all particles are actually determined by that end state (perhaps think of it as a backwards explosion), so the end state is "God." Further, if there's a holographic nature to the universe, then it might be possible for individuals to form very low-resolution but complete "images" of the final state well before the end, in which case they will also have "experienced God."

That's a quick and dirty summary of Alan Carter's take (http://www.reciprocality.org/thirdage/) on the whole issue; he also reckons the demiurge / Worker is actually abstract, deductive reasoning, which so often in our current Fallen state tends to override more pragmatic inductive reasoning ("wisdom")..

[acheron-hades.livejournal.com]

I personally would posit that God is already in all people RIGHT NOW, that they just keep themselves down by not realizing it.

That's pretty much my take on the whole thing, but on the other hand that process of realization usually seems to result in various changes to the mind and body (some drastic, some subtle; some rapid and some less so) which can certainly feel like one has been entered by God, or found the Tao, or had one's soul recollected (http://www.livejournal.com/users/acheron_hades/134759.html), or whatever. So I guess it's a kind of verbal shorthand that's prone to misinterpretation — as Chuang Tzu says, there is "no need to help Tao along", which seems to be the root problem underlying all proselytizing.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

(I had to go look this up - this is an old post!)
The separation idea is in most forms of mythology, and there is a separation, but it seems to be internal - between something in ourselves and what we consciously perceive. IOW, I see God as internal and not external.

[acheron-hades.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was chasing links in sophiaserpentia's journal, and didn't check the age of the entries - oops!

The separation idea is in most forms of mythology, and there is a separation, but it seems to be internal - between something in ourselves and what we consciously perceive.

Yes .. fear-based conditioning and belief systems seems to be kernel of it.

IOW, I see God as internal and not external.

I was just describing a cosmology (http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/435018.html#t4729162) which allows God to be both - another duality nuked! ;-)

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Well, I do also see collective human (or intelligent, maybe) consciousness as a possible sort of "god". But I see it more as then the individual being a part of the whole and not separate from the whole, as much as the individual may experience oneself as singular.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I would add to your proposal (which I like very much) that monotheism has similar problems. If there are an infinite number of gods, the problem of their being *one way* is obliterated.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I would qualify that to "some forms of monotheism." After all, pantheism is a kind of monotheism that would not suffer from this dilemma.

That said, your statement is a natural corrolary to mine. I am on the verge, really, of thinking of myself as an atheist. I'm truly not far from that; I have long described the divine presence as "potential" or "meaningful nothingness" (a.k.a. Ein Sof).

[pooperman.livejournal.com]

What, in your opinion, is the fundamental difference between pantheism and atheism?

Sometimes I see very little difference there.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

There isn't a practical difference, really, unless you assert that the pantheistic God is an intelligent designer, or something like that.

[pooperman.livejournal.com]

Interesting--it seems the whole theist vs. atheist debate is one of disputing the intelligence of God. I run into this when I try to wipe all preconceived notions of God from my head before proceeding. If I try to start with a God Who may or may not be not only intelligent but omniscient, I run into the very forceful objection of "a being with no intelligence or a lack of omniscience is not God."

If you entertain the possibility of the material universe, or even a small portion of it, such as human society, containing constituent parts that have complex interactions between themselves such that the overal set of complex interactions reflects an intelligence, somehow that is dismissed as atheistic as well.

Would a red blood cell zooming around within my circulation system properly label me as God? Certainly in relation to the blood cell, I am a pantheistic God of sorts. I most certainly do not actively think about every individual red blood cell personally, though I might look at the behavior of large groups of them with regards to my health and take actions that could be viewed as punative to those "nations." (This relates to your post today about Falwell.)

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Pantheism is monotheism? How so?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I suppose it is possible to imagine that there are several kinds of divine presence and that all things possess a measure of at least one such. But I've never seen a polytheistic pantheism before (which doesn't in itself mean it is impossible, just that no one's worked out the details).

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I don't think pantheism is monotheistic or pantheistic. Or rather, it is extremely polytheistic in saying that everything has its own divinity.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

To me, pantheism means the multiverse is a networked ecology with no central control. Monotheism is a top-down system. To me, everthing is divine from a quark to a galaxy to each and every organism and speck or dirt. We all extemporize, each in our way(s) to connect, compete, cooperate, build, maintain, and destroy.

There is a tendency I have noticed within polytheistic religions to posit one central God or AGoddess. I think that is an inherant flaw of organized religion in which the humans want power and a codifed structure. Whether the gods and goddesses are like that is doubtful to me.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I scratch my head in consternation of how/why you view pantheism as a form of monotheism.

[ladyelaine.livejournal.com]

I like that.

Re: atheism vs. pantheism, I'm a pantheist but don't see myself as an atheist. Could you clarify that one for me?

[yvesilena.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I possibly agree with that. I think that idea of God *certainly* leads to the old 'but if a loving God exists how come there is all this bad stuff?' argument, and also the 'if there is a God he's a capricious megalomaniac' argument...

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I agree. Cross-cultural and cross-religion studies almost invariably back the idea that cultures with animistic or pantheistic views are more egalitarian. If god/spirit is everything and is part of everything, then any idea of "superior" is based on situational ability instead of an idea that one is favored by diety and thus inherently better somehow. Any imposition of rule must be dealt with on a real psychological level and based on stated need. If one is going to take from another one must own one's motivations as they cannot be foisted on an outside agency.

Once diety is separated from the material (whether in a mono or polytheistic manner), the trend is for "certain" people to have access to the way. Separation of diety from mankind is directly tied with cultures that have a hierarchal power structure based on the idea that some people are "inherently" better than others. This can be as obvious as the divine right of kings or the idea which permeates U.S. culture that those who are more "successful" are obviously favored (by god or satan, depending on what the religious majority tends to think about the particular person ;P) Which then leads to abuses and divisions justified by the idea that one is following divine order. It is easier to harm when one can deny personal motivation and pin it on a "god" who resides outside.

[acheron-hades.livejournal.com]

(2) certainly makes complete sense. (1) doesn't seem to be so causally obvious, but there does seem to be a high correlation; I guess because it's such a short step from God being separate to the idea that some people are "closer" to Him / it than others.