.
??? What the hell are you talking about ???
I said the idea of self-divinity continues to this day in the face of atheism ("if there is no God, then I am god" -proclaimed one of Dostoevsky's characters). While you are trying to show that your version of paganism isn't about self divinity, remember?
What I'm demonstrating is that Paganism has diverse traditions and beliefs, some of which are not grounded in self-divinity, others of which hold self-divinity as an outcome of God permeating all Nature, and others of which old self-divinity as a core tenet.
My point is that (1) Paganism is not a single religious tradition, so speaking of it as if it has a single history and trajectory through monotheism into the modern nation-state and atheism is inaccurate and (2) your brief version of the history of modern religious and atheist movements leaves a lot to be desired. Pardon my confusion, but a couple paragraphs does not seem to do your apparent complex history justice.
Yes. I figure that's part of being human.
.. and did you notice that before I talked about atheism I specifically referenced rabbis, popes and imams? What do you think I was talking about there?
I could be entirely confused- but your post was rather short on details and weaving the link between relationships.
I still don't think the history of Paganism to monotheism is adequately addressed, as the range of indigenous, shamanic, etc. traditions and their relationship (or not) to monotheist traditions and the nation-state is incredibly varied. So this is not a simple movement from one to the other to atheism.
I would go on to point out the historical linkage between pagan ethos and the organized "monotheistic" institutions, but since I don't have time to keep correcting your "sloppy" errors, I'll just move on.
Well, it couldn't hurt for you to be more clear about the historical linkages you see, particularly since the actual history of Pagan traditions includes an immense variety in the relationship to monotheist institutions.
But perhaps you don't have the time to bother with presenting any details, and would prefer that I read your mind. Sorry, but I'm fresh out of telepathy at the moment.
Yea, we'll see about that.
Punchy, aren't ya?
great, you can use a dictionary, good 4 you...
I am pointing out that the way we use words matters. Assumptions about another's usage of language just muddles the conversation.
Now tell me, how can there be "no separation" between something transcendent, and something finite? You do believe in a transcendent Creator, do you not?
I believe in a Limitless that extends and unfolds into all manifest reality. The Limitless is transcendent in the sense that it is beyond my full knowing and comprehension. That flavor of transcendent may well not be the same as your flavor. I may not think of "God" the way you do.
Because the Limitless has its extension, through creative energy and thought, into all reality- including myself- there is really no separation between us. However, I may construct an artificial separation that reifies me as an individual being, which is comforting to humanity because we don't like the idea of change or dependency or consummation in the Divine. Finitude is limiting, but comforting.
One sees what one wishes to see. I create art. In a sense, my art is me. I am my art. I could also consider myself separate from my art. It's all in my perspective. But really, my energy and being and thought have gone into my art. So it carries me in it.
I'm a non-dualist. So I really think separation is an illusion- one that serves certain purposes until it is no longer needed.
OR are you also planning on flip flopping between pantheism or panentheism like the others here?
I have yet to see a single definition of these two terms agreed upon in comparative religious studies. So people define them variously- and by some people's definitions, I could be considered pantheist. By others, panentheist.
I generally believe I am panentheist, by the simple definition that I believe in a God that is in all and beyond all. That is, the sum total of manifest reality (the material universe) is not coterminous with God, as it generally is for pantheists.
However, this does not mean that God does not reveal Herself through manifest reality or that She does not unfold into Nature.
The singularity beyond the unfolding is incomprehensible to me. I can experience it, but never fully, and I can never understand it. This is because it is Limitless and I am only It in extension, with certain limitations as I am only one of Its thoughts.
Make this clear now before we waste anymore of each other's time.
Hope that is clear enough for you, so you don't feel like your time is wasted in having interfaith dialogue. If you are wasting your time, please let me know so I can stop trying to have an interesting conversation with someone who doesn't want it.
But if you are contending that you believe in a God that is simultaneously transcendent, yet there is no separation between Him and us, then that is just the kind of "sloppy" theology which I won't mind critiquing. (at least the panthiests are consistent).
Mystical traditions the world over are able to find truth in paradox and tension, and many religions have ideas that differ from yours in how they view God. Hinduism, for example, holds several ideas about the Divine simultaneously. Just because something is paradoxical or you don't understand or experience it, doesn't make it sloppy or of no value. But, you know, paradox isn't for everyone and I don't mind if someone doesn't value it. Each to their own.
While your at it, why don't you also try explaining how can there be any intermingling (or interpenetration, if you prefer the panentheistic terminology) between the "mind" and the body?
First explain what you mean by the "mind" and the body- and how the brain and neurology fits into all this. I can't really answer, as people use "mind" and "body" in such a variety of ways that I don't know what your meaning is.
Because your argument is no different then the dualistic notions of Descartes. The philosophers discarded such notions exactly because there can be no such intermingling. If you think you can try and prove them wrong, go ahead.
All philosophers discarded these notions, eh? Also, how is it that my argument is dualist when I am a non-dualist? To be a dualist, you have to believe there are real boundaries and separations between things. And I don't. Yes, I'm confused again and you'll need to explain this to me.
OR you can just accept that your "theology" falls into contradiction and semantics, before even reaching transcendence.
Of course my theaology is contradictory. It is meant to be paradoxical. This is purposeful and speaks to what I feel is closer to truth than our feeble attempts as human beings to shove the Limitless and how it works into comprehensible categories.
