Pantheism and Western Monotheism
How does pantheism relate to traditional Judaeo-Christian conceptions of God? As Paul Harrison ("Defining the Cosmic Divinity," SP website) points out, traditional (Western) religion describes a God who is ultimately a mystery, beyond human comprehension; awe-inspiring; overwhelmingly powerful; creator of the universe; eternal and infinite; and transcendent. The divine universe fits some of these descriptions without modification and it fits others if we allow ourselves to interpret the terms flexibly.
The divine universe is mysterious. Though we can understand the universe more adequately as scientific research proceeds, there will always be questions to which we will not yet have answers; and explanations of ultimate origins will always remain speculative (they are too far in the past for us to decipher clearly).
The divine universe is awe-inspiring. Would a creator behind it be any more awe-inspiring than the universe itself?
The universe is clearly very powerful. It creates and it destroys on a vast scale.
So far as we know, the universe created all that exists; which is to say that, the universe as it is now was created by the universe as it was a moment ago, and that universe by the universe that existed a moment before that, and so on. If we view universe in this way, we can keep the idea of creator and creation and yet have no need to imagine a being apart from the universe who created it. The divine being is indeed a creator, in the pantheist view. Indeed, the creativity of the natural universe is probably the best evidence for its divinity.
Is the universe eternal? Well, it depends on how you understand eternity. Traditional Western theology understands eternity as a quality of a God that exists altogether outside time. Yet the dynamic and changing universe is very much bound up with time, so it is not eternal in the theological sense. Possibly it is everlasting, maybe it had no first moment and will never cease to exist. Scientific evidence does point to a Big Bang several billion years ago, from which our universe in roughly its current form originated, but if we accept the time-honored precept that nothing comes from nothing, we cannot rule out the existence of a material universe before this Big Bang.
Is the universe transcendent? In Western theology transcendence is a term often paired with eternity. A transcendent being is essentially outside and independent of the universe. Of course, the divinity which pantheists revere is not transcendent in that way. However, in ordinary language, to transcend is to surpass. Well, the universe which includes us also certainly surpasses us, as it surpasses everything we are capable of knowing or observing.
Differences with Western Monotheism
Pantheism has clear differences with the traditional description of God. It departs from the picture of God given in the Old Testament to the extent that the Old Testament attributes human attributes to the divine being, such as a willingness to make deals (You worship me and I'll make you my Chosen People) and anger (for example, Yahweh's anger at the Israelites' worship of the Golden Calf).
Pantheism also avoids some features of the theological conception of God which arises from a mix of Greek philosophical influences and Judaeo-Christian thought. For example, pantheism does not hold that the divinity we revere is a first cause wholly independent of matter, or that the divine being freely creates the physical universe from nothing but its own will.
Personally, I've always fancied the ancient Greek model. The notion that the world is governed by a family of spoiled, petty, squabbling siblings makes more sense of what I see around me than the idea of a single, all powerful overseer.Presently there are a few surviving pantheist faiths. Hinduism, Taoism. Various forms of animism. Religious Buddhism with its Dharma Protectors. Hagiological Catholicism. Voudon. etc. All united in the belief that the present world seems to be the product of a comittee.
All united in the belief that the present world seems to be the product of a comittee.
er.... not in the case of Catholicism.
Umm... guess again. I did say the "present world".er.... not in the case of Catholicism.
Debatable.BVM isn't a god.
Exactly. Currently I appeal to spiritus sancti in prayer, but they're all in on the game.No, one god in three persons
I must disagree. Mariolatry is the primary form of worship in Catholicism, as ordinary worshippers are discouraged from praying to God directly. Also, Mary carries many of the same titles as the Egyptian goddess Isis, which is unsurprising given the Egyptian origins of Christianity. The whole separation between Dulia and Latria (Link discussing Dulia and Latria) is merely casuistry(what is casuistry? link), and even Catholics admit that, tho not the fellow in the article, for obvious reasons. Incidentally the Dulia/Latria distinction also has its origins in Egyptian religion, as that is discussed in Iamblicus "On the Mysteries". In a religion where 70% of all prayers go to the BVM, it is sheer patriarchal rhetoric and blind to the anthropological truth to pretend that she isn't a deity in every sense that matters.Not in doctrine and not in most practice. BVM isn't a god.
I must disagree. Mariolatry is the primary form of worship in Catholicism,
as ordinary worshippers are discouraged from praying to God directly.
Also, Mary carries many of the same titles as the Egyptian goddess Isis, which is unsurprising given the Egyptian origins of Christianity.
The whole separation between Dulia and Latria (Link discussing Dulia and Latria) is merely casuistry(what is casuistry? link), and even Catholics admit that, tho not the fellow in the article, for obvious reasons. Incidentally the Dulia/Latria distinction also has its origins in Egyptian religion, as that is discussed in Iamblicus "On the Mysteries".
In a religion where 70% of all prayers go to the BVM, it is sheer patriarchal rhetoric and blind to the anthropological truth to pretend that she isn't a deity in every sense that matters.
OMG sometimes I swear that someone is reading my mind. Some days, I have bemusedly entertained this exact idea!Personally, I've always fancied the ancient Greek model. The notion that the world is governed by a family of spoiled, petty, squabbling siblings makes more sense of what I see around me than the idea of a single, all powerful overseer.
I choose, some days, to be agnostic, monotheistic (though that serves me less and less each day), pantheistic or atheist. Depending on my mood.OMG sometimes I swear that someone is reading my mind. Some days, I have bemusedly entertained this exact idea!
Latria or Dulia? Most Catholicism is practiced as Dulia.The Mass is the primary form of worship. Catholics, Roman and Old, do not worship Mary.
They are? Not in Scotland, western and east europe, or north america and not in Malawi either - going by the congregations I ahve contacts with. Where are you getting this from?
BVM is there in the early church - see the debates over her title as "mother of God" etc - but the flowering comes in the middle ages, with the Assumption doctrine spreading, and especially the devotion of St Francis. There isn't anything wrong with Mary having these titles is there? you seem to be treating it as "point proved" but I can't tell what your point is. Given the gradual unfolding of Mariology, there isn't a continuous history of the terms being used - not sure if that is relevant to your point or not.
It isn't casuistry if it is what is taught and what is practiced and what is believed. I'm just checking that you know that all this is covered in basic catholic education? Also, don't get lost in translations between different national languages.
Every sense that matters to you perhaps. However, with your deep feelings on the matter, you seem to be ignoring primary evidence. It's the problem that all anthropologists face of course - the separation from the material and the impossibility of "knowing" if you do not partake of the mystery at first hand - be it this or ayahuasca or wiccan handfasting or succot.
Can I ask why this matters so much to you? It comes across that you are laying down the law about something that doesn't intimately involve you, which isn't a glowing start to a discussion.
Other phrases found at the site also challenge the known pantheon of Israelite faith. “Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah” and “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah,” for example, were also found inscribed at the site.
These are doubly outrageous. If God is one, then how can there be god for the north (Shomron) and for the south (Yemen, still called Teman in Hebrew)?
To make matters worse, does the word “Asherah,” formulated as “his Asherah”, hint that the gods of Israel had a wife? If so, where has she gone?
For Meshel, the site’s main researcher, the issue remains unresolved.
He and Ben Nun suspect the site brings insight to the beliefs of the people living here 3,000 years ago. They did not worship a single al-powerful deity: they were devoted to a pantheon of gods.
It has also long been known that households with Jewish hallmarks, certainly in the First Temple era and later too, also had images of other gods, a.k.a, figurines.
If anything the discoveries at Kuntillet Ajrud indicate that in the late ninth century B.C.E. or the early eighth, the idea of a single deity had not yet consolidated, suggests Meshel. "In this religious reality YHWH is local, for the city, the village, for Shomron and for Teman (Yemen)."
That would presumably be in the days before they started to chop bits off.[A certain interpretation of some] Drawings indicate that Ancient Judaism had more than one God, God had a wife, and also a fairly impressive penis.
Well God would have a nice hat, wouldn't he.Nice hat, too.