Does Somebody Have To Be Wrong?

[AletheiaRivers]

Have you been reading "Yertle the Turtle" again?

ROFLMAO!

 

[Dondi]

Yeah, apparently, God's name is Mack.

 

[AletheiaRivers]

OK, now I'm going to have to go read the book. I thought I'd read most Dr. Seus, but I haven't read that one.

 

[Dondi]

OK, now I'm going to have to go read the book. I thought I'd read most Dr. Seus, but I haven't read that one.

This is my favorite Seuss book. It is actually three stories, all seeming to have a moral point, the other two being "Gertrude McFuzz" and "The Big Brag". Written in 1958, Yertle the Turtle is actually a bag on Hitler.

 

[Therapon]

What or who would the polytheists that you know say created or emanated the "many Gods?" Do they even think about it? Where did those Gods come from?

The Gods are emanations of 'The One' and yes if you are like you say, influenced by Neoplatonism, you should know that we (Neoplatonists) do think about it

 

[AletheiaRivers]

The Gods are emanations of 'The One' and yes if you are like you say, influenced by Neoplatonism, you should know that we (Neoplatonists) do think about it

If the "gods" are emmanations of "The One," then ultimately, that is MONOtheistic, as the gods have a source, a first cause, a "creator."

That was my whole point.

You said:

I also believe that polytheism is the true nature of religion and conversely anything else is false.

Which, if you are neoplatonic, is not true. Neoplatonism is not polytheistic.

 

[bgruagach]

If the "gods" are emmanations of "The One," then ultimately, that is MONOtheistic, as the gods have a source, a first cause, a "creator."

That was my whole point.

Not necessarily.

"First cause" and "creator" imply a beginning point. There is nothing inherent in the philosophy that the various gods and goddesses are different faces or aspects of a larger Divine that requires belief in a starting point. The Ultimate Divine could have always existed, and the various manifestations of that Divine could also be thought to have always existed and therefore have no starting point.

; )

Ben Gruagach

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Not necessarily.

"First cause" and "creator" imply a beginning point. There is nothing inherent in the philosophy that the various gods and goddesses are different faces or aspects of a larger Divine that requires belief in a starting point. The Ultimate Divine could have always existed, and the various manifestations of that Divine could also be thought to have always existed and therefore have no starting point.

; )

Ben Gruagach

And yet it's all ONE unified whole that always existed. Plurality in unity.

Could we pretend that I only used the term "Source"?

 

[bgruagach]

And yet it's all ONE unified whole that always existed. Plurality in unity.

Could we pretend that I only used the term "Source"?

Some postulate that the essentially unknowable One is more of a collective than a singular individual. Just because we mortals are individual and see ourselves as distinct from other members of our species does not mean that the Divine has to be this way.

That might be considered to be "making God in our own image."

Some certainly do see the Divine as a singular individual, even one who might manifest to humans through various guises, but it's also certain that some see even a One Ultimate Divine as being so complex and advanced that our feeble concept of individual identity could not possibly apply to It.

; )

Ben Gruagach

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Just because we mortals are individual and see ourselves as distinct from other members of our species does not mean that the Divine has to be this way.

Actually I agree. Hence "plurality in unity," "Neoplatonic emmanationism," and "panenetheism."

Am I really being that unclear or are you guys just being difficult?

 

[bgruagach]

Actually I agree. Hence "plurality in unity," "Neoplatonic emmanationism," and "panenetheism."

Am I really being that unclear or are you guys just being difficult?

Just clarifying!



Ben Gruagach

 

[AletheiaRivers]

That's cool.

 

[Therapon]

If the "gods" are emmanations of "The One," then ultimately, that is MONOtheistic, as the gods have a source, a first cause

That is absolute rubbish

You need to go back to your primary sources and perhaps read a few dictionaries!

One ultimate cause is 'Monism' many Gods is 'Polytheism' Neoplatonism is 'Monistic-Polytheism'

For clarification:

Monism = One Ultimate Reality
Dualism = Two Ultimate Realities
Pluralism = Many = Ultimate Realities

Monotheism = One God
Polytheism = Many Gods

One may be a combination of either.

 

[Therapon]

Some postulate that the essentially unknowable One is more of a collective than a singular individual. Just because we mortals are individual and see ourselves as distinct from other members of our species does not mean that the Divine has to be this way.

Yes 'The One' in Neoplatonism is a Unity rather than a Singularity. just as we humans share the same essential humanity, the Gods share the same divine essence...'The One' (Gk; To Hen).

 

[AletheiaRivers]

One ultimate cause is 'Monism' many Gods is 'Polytheism' Neoplatonism is 'Monistic-Polytheism'

No, Neoplatonism = Idealistic Monism, which means the Source emmanates all realities.

I'm a monist.

Perhaps you'd know that if you'd spend less time determined to be confrontational. I think you'd also notice that earlier in the conversation I said I believe God is a plurality in unity (NOT a singularity).

I think much of the misunderstanding in this conversation comes from the way we are each defining "monotheism."

I believe we have much in common philosophically. I'd love to discuss these ideas with you.

 

[Therapon]

I think much of the misunderstanding in this conversation comes from the way we are each defining "monotheism."

Well I apologise for being confrontational but the way you're defining Monotheism would appear to have more philosophical input than religious?

It may sem like a minor point but as a Hellenic polytheist who is also a Neoplatonist it's a point that needs stating and one which many Hellenic Reconstructionists will take issue over.

I agree you are a Monist, as am I but I'm most certainly not a Monotheist.

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot as I'm sure you're right, we have much in common philosophically

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Well I apologise for being confrontational but the way you're defining Monotheism would appear to have more philosophical input than religious?

Yes, definitely philosophical rather than religious.

I agree you are a Monist, as am I but I'm most certainly not a Monotheist.

And that's cool. I focus on the Source, both as a unity and as a plurality. Panentheism describes my outlook the best. To get rather technical, I'd say I am a qualified monist, panentheist, deeply influenced by neoplatonism, as seen through a Contemplative Christian path. Hehehe.

Hellenic polytheism eh? What led you down that path?

 

[Therapon]

Hellenic polytheism eh? What led you down that path?

I try to balance Absolute Idealism with Hard-Polytheism...it's not easy

What led me to Hellenic Polytheism...would you believe Christianity and the quest for the perennial philosophy

I started out as an Evangelical Protestant converted to Catholicism when I was in my twenties then Orthodoxy ten years later. I had an interest in the mystical theology of the church and realised that ultimately for me it was all about Plato. Eventually I could no longer go to Church as the external trappings of religion were beginning to chafe with the teachings of Platonism as I was understanding them.

I found the Hellenismos community (Hellenic Polytheism) on the internet and thought that Hellenic Polytheism would be the perfect religion to compliment my Neoplatonism...it works a treat

Why Polytheism rather than Monotheism? We can only see the One through the Many

 

[sedated_angel]

The answer is (from a Wiccan Standpoint): No. No one is necessarily wrong. Each person/group of people has his/her/their own way of relating to the unfathomable divine. No human could possibly conceive the true vastness of a deity, and therefore we create religions as our way understanding this greater thing. The only right religion is the one that works for the person who believes it. Are some of them amoral? No. Not within the scope of their beliefs. Are some of them amoral in the oppinion of other faiths? Yes, very much so. But the truth is, no one religion can judge any other, as each is a seperate entity in and of itself, it's like comparing apples, oranges, and bananas. Is one better than the next? No. But one may be preferred by an individual over the others. Can you compare one to the next? Not really, the only thing which all have in common is that they are all fruits. Likewise is religion. None are better than the next, only better for the individual who chooses that religion. Their similarity is that they are all religions, nothing more.

 

[MisterNicholas]

I believe (currently), that every person should have their own "religion". This "religion" could have 99.99% resemblance to an established method of understanding, and therefore fall into a category, but it is your own, due to the 0.01% difference. Explained:

In this story, there are four characters. Timothy, Zoe, a teacher, and a toy duck. Toy duck is sitting on the ground, and Timothy happens to see Mr.Duck. In Timothy's mind, he registers the duck's exterior as color #1, but he does not know the word for color #1. He goes to the teacher and asks the teacher what the color of the duck is. The teacher tells him it is yellow.
For Timothy, yellow = color #1.

Zoe sights the same toy duck. She runs up to it, and immediatly percieves it as color #2, but also doesn't know the word for the color in her mind. Like Timothy, she asks teacher the color of the duck. The teacher tells her the duck is yellow.
For Zoe, yellow = color #2.

Later, Timothy and Zoe get to talking, and discover they both have seen the yellow duck! They both marvel at how yellow is the most beautiful color.

They all live ->happily<- ever after.