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

[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.)