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

[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.