Is there such a thing as “conventional” monotheism?

[sidetrack]

When it comes to the type of belief that can ascribed to divinity in Christianity,you can’t do polytheism,monolatrism or henotheism;that point is firmly established early on in the lives of most believers. Christianity is monotheistic .i.e. there is only One God;that essential point has always been something which has been made out to everyone even while having to explain the Holy Trinity.

However for the most part in the history of missionary efforts it’s seems that whenever post-Renaissance European missionaries felt impulsed to explain the conception of God they brought with them,it ussually been done under the presumption that for the local autochthonous populations the idea of monotheism would be utterly baffling new news for them…do all this operating under the persistent assumption that any autocthonous belief is by default * polytheistic,offensive,outlandishly “incorrect”,with no moral value whatsoever,has to dismantled 100% and don’t be bothered by being oblivious to what is already vernacular and pre-existing…imagine the tensions btw post-15th European Christianity and various Indian religion including** the Saint Thomas Christians/Nasrani plus all the centuries afterwords of misunderstanding Indian religions which still often happens.*

Not so much as giving space open ears for to regional beliefs (let alone letting syncreticism develop -_-), left not so much an impression of an omnibenevolent universal God to the newly exposed as much as a monolithic “foreign” God who’s connection to humanity has usually had it’s “shots called” by missionaries who can decide on whim what his attributes are,not exempting being as miracle-making but as standoffish as he needs to be until the bringers of his message (European colonizers usually -_-) get settled in enough

… :ehh: and we still wonder why we sometimes end up with portrayals of an elderly long bearded anthropomorphized being (like the figure on the right in Michaelanglo’s* Creation of Adam*) that makes about as much sense to people as there having been a powerful wizard who made all of Creation .

Which compels me to ask this seemingly simple question which I’m thinking has an immense underlying scope which we often take for granted:what is monotheism?.

See thinking back to the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12108400#post12108400 and the replies I wrote, it’s not uncommon for ppl (whether monotheistic,animist,polytheistic,deist etc) to reach a theocosmocentric perspective of God;EVEN Abrahamic religions do it ,even though* many* are very reluctant to come to terms with it for some reason -_- .

In Judaism,I’ve heard that it is one of the realizations that you find in going through the Kabbalah (something called* Tzimtzum* is involved), in Islam it’s something brought up in Sufism and similarly in Christianity it’s brought up in more esoteric strains. You would have to be a liar to say that certains saints whether Orthodox or Catholic haven’t had notions of God that bear more on an idea of

a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God… or an eternal cosmic animating force]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it…panentheism maintain[ing] the identity and significance of the non-divine…God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe…ome…suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God… the cosmos exists within God, who in turn “transcends”, “pervades” or is “in” the cosmos… pantheism asserts that ‘All is God’, panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe.

than the bearded figure on the left of Michaelanglo’s* Creation of Adam*,so often left as the only notion of God and one which easily “dissembles” when ppl get older,particulary when they don’t bother to look into having more knowledge about their religion.

I see the notion of an “eternal all-present animating force” in the “viriditas” described by Hildegard of Bingen and personally I wouldn’t doubt that followers from the first few decades of Christianity even before the infusion of Greco- and Platonic philosophy found the concept a handy sedgeway to their personal connection to God.

THERE IS NO REASON, .a.f.a.i.k. why attributing love to this (panentheism) cannot be done.Which is why the difference between a monotheistic God (as described via commonly espoused Christian monotheism) who is “personal and transcendent” is starting to look pretty tenous to me from a conception of panentheism being near consubstantial with love as a kind of entity.

*I know that there is One God in three beings…a part of me feels something like “God the Father=monotheism,the Holy Spirit=panentheism and Jesus=a personal (and b/c of the Hypostatic Union; Immanent?) God” and there unity is most important thing to think of when conceptualizing God *

 

[schaeffer]

THERE IS NO REASON, .a.f.a.i.k. why attributing love to this (panentheism) cannot be done.Which is why the difference between a monotheistic God (as described via commonly espoused Christian monotheism) who is “personal and transcendent” is starting to look pretty tenous to me from a conception of panentheism being near consubstantial with love as a kind of entity.

*I know that there is One God in three beings…a part of me feels something like “God the Father=monotheism,the Holy Spirit=panentheism and Jesus=a personal (and b/c of the Hypostatic Union; Immanent?) God” and there unity is most important thing to think of when conceptualizing God *

What is your understanding of “love”? I think that is often the crux of things, as in English that word can be used to cover such an array of things that it’s useful to define which aspect one is speaking of, especially in discussions like this.

My understanding of “love” certainly on the cosmic level is cooperation, not human cooperation, but a larger intrinsic complete cooperation…that makes the world (Universe) go round.

Does one “love” God, as in admire, feel warm and fuzzy towards, really dig cause he’s a cool dude?

Does God “love” people, as in feel tender towards, think they are amusing, want to make them happy?

Or is the love a larger, but also more detailed thing? Detailed even beyond a subatomic level, a cooperation so pervasive that sometimes people don’t “see” it, because it seems so automatic.

I think that is the level where panentheism and pantheism come in. Where “love” is not understood on a human level, but as a profound cooperation. But then, where does that leave the idea of a personal God?

That is the stuff of so very many philosophical discussions.

Some feel that there MUST be a personal God, others experience their place in the Universe and say “what could possible BE more personal than this?!”

Personal beyond a “me and you” level. Beyond the idea that me and my concerns are the same as those of the Divine. An acceptance and celebration in understanding that we are so intrinsically a part of something so much larger and profound, that to reduce it to any human understanding of “personal” is to misrepresent it.

 

[Skeptic92]

“Conventional” monotheism would simply be Classical Theism; the Philosophical school of monotheism for centuries.

 

[Xuan]

Some feel that there MUST be a personal God, others experience their place in the Universe and say “what could possible BE more personal than this?!”

Personal beyond a “me and you” level. Beyond the idea that me and my concerns are the same as those of the Divine. An acceptance and celebration in understanding that we are so intrinsically a part of something so much larger and profound, that to reduce it to any human understanding of “personal” is to misrepresent it.

Hi schaeffer,

I agree. When we assign human traits to God so that we can discuss Him, we end up not really discussing Him at all, but rather discussing a god (concept) we’ve created in our own (human) image. Sound familiar? This misdirection, an anthromorphic version of God, was one thing that kept me from actually finding God for a long long time.

As far as “personal” is concerned, my position is that God is not personal, and God is not less than personal.

Xuan

 

[Linusthe2nd]

When it comes to the type of belief that can ascribed to divinity in Christianity,you can’t do polytheism,monolatrism or henotheism;that point is firmly established early on in the lives of most believers. Christianity is monotheistic .i.e. there is only One God;that essential point has always been something which has been made out to everyone even while having to explain the Holy Trinity.

However for the most part in the history of missionary efforts it’s seems that whenever post-Renaissance European missionaries felt impulsed to explain the conception of God they brought with them,it ussually been done under the presumption that for the local autochthonous populations the idea of monotheism would be utterly baffling new news for them…do all this operating under the persistent assumption that any autocthonous belief is by default * polytheistic,offensive,outlandishly “incorrect”,with no moral value whatsoever,has to dismantled 100% and don’t be bothered by being oblivious to what is already vernacular and pre-existing…imagine the tensions btw post-15th European Christianity and various Indian religion including*** the Saint Thomas Christians/Nasrani plus all the centuries afterwords of misunderstanding Indian religions which still often happens.

Not so much as giving space open ears for to regional beliefs (let alone letting syncreticism develop -_-), left not so much an impression of an omnibenevolent universal God to the newly exposed as much as a monolithic “foreign” God who’s connection to humanity has usually had it’s “shots called” by missionaries who can decide on whim what his attributes are,not exempting being as miracle-making but as standoffish as he needs to be until the bringers of his message (European colonizers usually -_-) get settled in enough

… :ehh: and we still wonder why we sometimes end up with portrayals of an elderly long bearded anthropomorphized being (like the figure on the right in Michaelanglo’s* Creation of Adam*) that makes about as much sense to people as there having been a powerful wizard who made all of Creation .

Which compels me to ask this seemingly simple question which I’m thinking has an immense underlying scope which we often take for granted:what is monotheism?.

See thinking back to the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12108400#post12108400 and the replies I wrote, it’s not uncommon for ppl (whether monotheistic,animist,polytheistic,deist etc) to reach a theocosmocentric perspective of God;EVEN Abrahamic religions do it ,even though* many* are very reluctant to come to terms with it for some reason -_- .

In Judaism,I’ve heard that it is one of the realizations that you find in going through the Kabbalah (something called* Tzimtzum* is involved), in Islam it’s something brought up in Sufism and similarly in Christianity it’s brought up in more esoteric strains. You would have to be a liar to say that certains saints whether Orthodox or Catholic haven’t had notions of God that bear more on an idea of

than the bearded figure on the left of Michaelanglo’s* Creation of Adam*,so often left as the only notion of God and one which easily “dissembles” when ppl get older,particulary when they don’t bother to look into having more knowledge about their religion.

I see the notion of an “eternal all-present animating force” in the “viriditas” described by Hildegard of Bingen and personally I wouldn’t doubt that followers from the first few decades of Christianity even before the infusion of Greco- and Platonic philosophy found the concept a handy sedgeway to their personal connection to God.

THERE IS NO REASON, .a.f.a.i.k. why attributing love to this (panentheism) cannot be done.Which is why the difference between a monotheistic God (as described via commonly espoused Christian monotheism) who is “personal and transcendent” is starting to look pretty tenous to me from a conception of panentheism being near consubstantial with love as a kind of entity.

*I know that there is One God in three beings…a part of me feels something like “God the Father=monotheism,the Holy Spirit=panentheism and Jesus=a personal (and b/c of the Hypostatic Union; Immanent?) God” and there unity is most important thing to think of when conceptualizing God *

This whole thing is incoherent. What is your complaint in 120 words? Don’t you believe God is who the Church says, don’t you believe that God’s nature is what the Church says it is? Check the Catechism below, Part 1.

Linus2nd

 

[sidetrack]

This whole thing is incoherent. What is your complaint in 120 words? Don’t you believe God is who the Church says, don’t you believe that God’s nature is what the Church says it is? Check the Catechism below, Part 1.

Linus2nd

-]/-]

---

I do but…:ehh:…it’s the way Christianity in particular has had a long history of aggressively establishing “dibs” on what a monotheistic God is while making the (imo) nigh-foolhardy >_< decision to ignore whatever pre-existing concepts of a divine “oneness” is already there in a culture,(which so many arrive on,on their own) which bothers me so much.The contentions ppl find with syncreticism and contextualizing local culture into the internal culture of* all the ***believers ,instead of say giving the most weight to making sure a European style get’s replicable transplant,speaks to this.

What I find ends up happening to a lay-person when thinking about what monotheism means is^1 , “the best they got” (of an idea of a one God) when having to describe him or portray a single bearded elderly looking monarch.

_ It can work for you when your a little kid (esp.a non-precocious,not-so-pondering, non-contrarian one)…however when you grow up and bother to bring up discussions of God such a concept can make audicious enough ppl to scoff at as inchoate^2 due to in one crucial component the ever so simplistic to conceive of image of bearded elderly monarch being though of as the grand summation of all reality.I am NOT^3 reffering to Jesus; I’m referring more to the non-human touching Adam’s finger in Michaelanglo’s, “Creation of Adam” which can be said to be the one who Jesus often describes as his Father^4.

Now if you say the entity who makes the summation of all reality is more akin to an invisible force…that there is a more versatile route to go than to point to a powerful elderly bearded monarch as what you worship when debating with a non-believer.

It’s easier and more forthcoming to give attributes to the concept of an animating universal life principle or force than to a being;esp.after you say (that this animating universal force) is omnipotent and can (essentially ) be and do whatever he wants?,right?.

^1 let me specify further: by lay-ppl I mean lay ppl who have no further way of knowing about the nature of God.Not just b/c they don’t bother to crack open some knowledge on the internet or in books but b/c they might not be literate and thus more likely compelled to have to go with what a priest is saying;a priest who might very well not be much of a philosopher-theologian* per se* than an administrator-pastor and who’s feedback may usually be summed up as “b/c the [thousands of kilometers away] * the Vatican said so*”.

This is has been more common than we think,imo -_- , (looking at you all you pre-20th century,centuries of prevalent illiteracy)

^2 it is that inchoateness which has caused a lot of the atheism and agnosticism throughout history imo,not exempting the apathetic kind.

^3 a (not so elderly) human being who was consubstantial with the true being of the ultimate reality and who got by looking like a local and having his behavior recorded by living local ppl is a fairly different issue…

^4 ppl even before Hume,Nietzche,Betrand Russell,Richard Dawkins and Seth MacFarlane have been taking knocks on the popular depiction of a bearded elderly monarch and I can’t STAND IT (to happen) ANYMORE >_< !, which as a result makes me sorta cringe at the notion that it’s the bearded elderly monarch look which sticks in remains in the minds of many apathetic ppl and who commonly and effortlessly gets shredded by so many.

-~- and I would not be to surprised if/when Muslims and Jews get ticked off for when ppl ridicule their conception of God b/c in the mind of the ridiculers “their one God=some super powerful old bearded guy” =_= .

Bring up the Holy Spirit and get you get some hushing down (not the least b/c of more appeal to the soul,so to speak)…yet even for the most knowledgable believers explaining the Holy Spirit has actually been a trickier and more long-standing task than what it took to get the Hypostatic Union down,hasn’t it?.*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

-]/-]

---

I do but…:ehh:…it’s the way Christianity in particular has had a long history of aggressively establishing “dibs” on what a monotheistic God is while making the (imo) nigh-foolhardy >_< decision to ignore whatever pre-existing concepts of a divine “oneness” is already there in a culture,(which so many arrive on,on their own) which bothers me so much.The contentions ppl find with syncreticism and contextualizing local culture into the internal culture of* all the ***believers ,instead of say giving the most weight to making sure a European style get’s replicable transplant,speaks to this.

What I find ends up happening to a lay-person when thinking about what monotheism means is^1 , “the best they got” (of an idea of a one God) when having to describe him or portray a single bearded elderly looking monarch.

_ It can work for you when your a little kid (esp.a non-precocious,not-so-pondering, non-contrarian one)…however when you grow up and bother to bring up discussions of God such a concept can make audicious enough ppl to scoff at as inchoate^2 due to in one crucial component the ever so simplistic to conceive of image of bearded elderly monarch being though of as the grand summation of all reality.I am NOT^3 reffering to Jesus; I’m referring more to the non-human touching Adam’s finger in Michaelanglo’s, “Creation of Adam” which can be said to be the one who Jesus often describes as his Father^4.

Now if you say the entity who makes the summation of all reality is more akin to an invisible force…that there is a more versatile route to go than to point to a powerful elderly bearded monarch as what you worship when debating with a non-believer.

It’s easier and more forthcoming to give attributes to the concept of an animating universal life principle or force than to a being;esp.after you say (that this animating universal force) is omnipotent and can (essentially ) be and do whatever he wants?,right?.

^1 let me specify further: by lay-ppl I mean lay ppl who have no further way of knowing about the nature of God.Not just b/c they don’t bother to crack open some knowledge on the internet or in books but b/c they might not be literate and thus more likely compelled to have to go with what a priest is saying;a priest who might very well not be much of a philosopher-theologian* per se* than an administrator-pastor and who’s feedback may usually be summed up as “b/c the [thousands of kilometers away] * the Vatican said so*”.

This is has been more common than we think,imo -_- , (looking at you all you pre-20th century,centuries of prevalent illiteracy)

^2 it is that inchoateness which has caused a lot of the atheism and agnosticism throughout history imo,not exempting the apathetic kind.

^3 a (not so elderly) human being who was consubstantial with the true being of the ultimate reality and who got by looking like a local and having his behavior recorded by living local ppl is a fairly different issue…

^4 ppl even before Hume,Nietzche,Betrand Russell,Richard Dawkins and Seth MacFarlane have been taking knocks on the popular depiction of a bearded elderly monarch and I can’t STAND IT (to happen) ANYMORE >_< !, which as a result makes me sorta cringe at the notion that it’s the bearded elderly monarch look which sticks in remains in the minds of many apathetic ppl and who commonly and effortlessly gets shredded by so many.

-~- and I would not be to surprised if/when Muslims and Jews get ticked off for when ppl ridicule their conception of God b/c in the mind of the ridiculers “their one God=some super powerful old bearded guy” =_= .

Bring up the Holy Spirit and get you get some hushing down (not the least b/c of more appeal to the soul,so to speak)…yet even for the most knowledgable believers explaining the Holy Spirit has actually been a trickier and more long-standing task than what it took to get the Hypostatic Union down,hasn’t it?.

Well, I have no specific knowlege of how evangilization was done or is being done to those who may have a different concept of God. I doubt is it was or is as problematic as you suggest. And of course the Christian concept of God or of the Trinity are very difficult to get across. And no doubt much depends on God’s prevenient grace. And I think we have to keep in mind and believe Christ when he said, " My word will not return empty. "

Linus2nd

 

[Xuan]

-]/-]

---

I do but…:ehh:…it’s the way Christianity in particular has had a long history of aggressively establishing “dibs” on what a monotheistic God is while making the (imo) nigh-foolhardy >_< decision to ignore whatever pre-existing concepts of a divine “oneness” is already there in a culture,(which so many arrive on,on their own) which bothers me so much.The contentions ppl find with syncreticism and contextualizing local culture into the internal culture of* all the ***believers ,instead of say giving the most weight to making sure a European style get’s replicable transplant,speaks to this.

What I find ends up happening to a lay-person when thinking about what monotheism means is^1 , “the best they got” (of an idea of a one God) when having to describe him or portray a single bearded elderly looking monarch.

_ It can work for you when your a little kid (esp.a non-precocious,not-so-pondering, non-contrarian one)…however when you grow up and bother to bring up discussions of God such a concept can make audicious enough ppl to scoff at as inchoate^2 due to in one crucial component the ever so simplistic to conceive of image of bearded elderly monarch being though of as the grand summation of all reality.I am NOT^3 reffering to Jesus; I’m referring more to the non-human touching Adam’s finger in Michaelanglo’s, “Creation of Adam” which can be said to be the one who Jesus often describes as his Father^4.

Now if you say the entity who makes the summation of all reality is more akin to an invisible force…that there is a more versatile route to go than to point to a powerful elderly bearded monarch as what you worship when debating with a non-believer.

It’s easier and more forthcoming to give attributes to the concept of an animating universal life principle or force than to a being;esp.after you say (that this animating universal force) is omnipotent and can (essentially ) be and do whatever he wants?,right?.
.

Hi sidetrack,

You bring up some interesting points. Here are some thoughts:

If one takes away the human attributes from God, then it’s no longer called monotheism, or even theism. Theism implies a god with anthromorphic attributes so the god will be worshipped, praised, obeyed. If the god doesn’t have these traits, then it’s simply not called a god.

If we take away the human traits from God, we might have something like philosophical Daoism (Dao Jia) as opposed to Chinese folk religion. The Dao is the Source of everything and the Way of everything, but people don’t assign human characteristics to it, so they don’t see it as “personal.” But since it’s the Source of everything, personal and impersonal, it is unlimited like God. Since it’s not seen as personal, people don’t worship it in the sense of praying to it. But since it is the ultimate, the Way of everything, they do try to conform themselves to it, also a form of worship. Christ said “Be perfect as the Father is perfect.” That means “Conform yourselves to God,” in much the way Daoists try to conform themselves to the Dao.

It’s difficult for people to relate to something they cannot know intellectually, though, so they tend to make God, or various gods, into something they can relate to. This is a text I found a few years ago that makes the connection between the Dao and God. Notice how the Dao is described apophatically:

There was always SOMETHING out there in the deep, mysterious void. IT was ONE. IT was simple when ignored and complex when observed. IT was incomprehensible and without definition. And in its complexity IT was neither “being” nor “non-being;” neither male nor female. IT was without form, and without need of sustenance of any kind. IT knew neither time nor space and yet IT birthed all “being” as yin and all “non-being” as yang. IT was TAO… the Way of Things… the eternal source and sustainer of all things.

…And then there was time and sequence of events, and yin and yang gave birth to the illusion of all division and “being.”

When men began to divide things by naming them, many named IT “God” and gave IT cultural names.

And thus it came to be that…

There are as many names for God as there are tongues to speak them.

There are as many faces of God as there are eyes to behold them.

There are as many paths to God as there are feet to walk them.

No name is the complete name.

No face is the complete face.

No path is the complete path.

These are just some thoughts I have about the interrelationship between Christianity, or Abrahamic Monotheism, and other cultures/religions that see the Creator/Source as being One.

Xuan

 

[sidetrack]

Well, I have no specific knowlege of how evangilization was done or is being done to those who may have a different concept of God. I doubt is it was or is as problematic as you suggest. And of course the Christian concept of God or of the Trinity are very difficult to get across. And no doubt much depends on God’s prevenient grace. And I think we have to keep in mind and believe Christ when he said, " My word will not return empty. "

Linus2nd

Really now?.The sentence I emboldened: okay try to imagine if not look up in an impartial way how evangelizations was conducted in these places:

-India

-South Korea

-Kenya

-Vietnam

-the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo during the time when they were collectively called the Congo area

When another monotheistic religion like Islam (or India’s case) Sikhism wasn’t there, I don’t doubt that even if ppl were practicing animism (with some less than favorable manifested orthopraxis;certain rituals like sacrifices "-~-) or a religion as open ended as Buddhism or Hinduism,there were already prevenient notions of “Oneness” rolling in ppl’s head that I don’t got hand-waved as inchoate non-sense that had to get a aggresively displaced with (not so much gently subsumed via syncreticism) with a Eurocentric take on God the Father.

Even though the Eurocentric image of God the Father in it’s authochthonic Europe had started to get really shaky by the time the second wave of European colonizations started (~early 19th century).

While the default answer to a monotheistic God being espoused in colonized places was an elderly bearded monarch (which sometimes wasn’t even to far off from the prior conception -~-) was being cultivated, rather paradoxically all around Europe factors like the cultural upheaval of during the Industrial revolution,Positivism and political movements like waves of anarchy and socialism were crashing into centuries of concepts of what a religion and God is, while churches were starting to look more and more like merely arbitrary institutions.

Cue the ppl often seen as antagonistic to conventional monotheism Diderot, Nietzche, Marx, Max Stirner ;contributing to more publically outspoken atheism and around for decades before Bertrand Russell (technically a philosophical agnostic who made himself out to be an atheist;while being anti-religious nethertheless) and the Analytic philosophy school (famous for regularly cold-shouldering metaphysics) which would become so popular in the Anglospheric world including their likely influence on “the four horsemen” ,Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Ayaan Hirsi Ali who became atheistic for non-academic but like many, b/c of perceiving critical gaps in Abrahamic monotheism and resultant de facto normative ethics,present and past.I’m not even mentioning comedians and humorists here.

Cue the popularity of occultism in 19th century European which sometimes picking and choosing elements from “exotica” like the apparently polytheistic frowned up “Eastern” religions like Hinduism and elements like meditation plus different takes on emotion and consciousness; precursors to neo-paganism and New Age thought many are skittish toward.

Cue Ppl like Ninian Smart, Edward Burnett Tylor and other thinkers who (approaching religion from the outside) kind admitted that maybe this “everything has to/must be whole Abrahamic monotheism” might have been a culturally biased induction fallacy;plus ppl who while not religious (in a regular Catholic sense) are still sympathetic to religion in contrast to the “the Four horsemen” but don’t get anywhere near as much popularity and recognition— Carl Jung, Heinrich Zimmer,Karl Beth, Jurgen Habermas ,Peggy Levitt.

When you know that not being a typical monotheist DOES NOT refute a loving God nor does it mean you have to an agnostic,you can also learn that it’s not worth shedding blood over and being standoffish with ppl when there idea of Oneness is typical monotheism. It’s also presents a different construct that’s many stereotypers.

Now cue >:I the disconcerting fundamentalism both Christian and Islamic in places like Sub-sahara Africa, the Phillipines and the .U.S. and see what sticking to this induction fallacy to the extent that we get neglect much,get hostile,get divisive and start pointing fingers calling each “fanatic” or antinomian has resulted in?.

^1 to reiterate NOT including God the Son;Jesus.

 

[sidetrack]

Hi sidetrack,

You bring up some interesting points. Here are some thoughts:

If one takes away the human attributes from God, then it’s no longer called monotheism, or even theism. Theism implies a god with anthromorphic attributes so the god will be worshipped, praised, obeyed. If the god doesn’t have these traits, then it’s simply not called a god.

If we take away the human traits from God, we might have something like philosophical Daoism (Dao Jia) as opposed to Chinese folk religion. The Dao is the Source of everything and the Way of everything, but people don’t assign human characteristics to it, so they don’t see it as “personal.” But since it’s the Source of everything, personal and impersonal, it is unlimited like God. Since it’s not seen as personal, people don’t worship it in the sense of praying to it. But since it is the ultimate, the Way of everything, they do try to conform themselves to it, also a form of worship. Christ said “Be perfect as the Father is perfect.” That means “Conform yourselves to God,” in much the way Daoists try to conform themselves to the Dao.

It’s difficult for people to relate to something they cannot know intellectually, though, so they tend to make God, or various gods, into something they can relate to. This is a text I found a few years ago that makes the connection between the Dao and God. Notice how the Dao is described apophatically:

There was always SOMETHING out there in the deep, mysterious void. IT was ONE. IT was simple when ignored and complex when observed. IT was incomprehensible and without definition. And in its complexity IT was neither “being” nor “non-being;” neither male nor female. IT was without form, and without need of sustenance of any kind. IT knew neither time nor space and yet IT birthed all “being” as yin and all “non-being” as yang. IT was TAO… the Way of Things… the eternal source and sustainer of all things.

…And then there was time and sequence of events, and yin and yang gave birth to the illusion of all division and “being.”

When men began to divide things by naming them, many named IT “God” and gave IT cultural names.

And thus it came to be that…

There are as many names for God as there are tongues to speak them.

There are as many faces of God as there are eyes to behold them.

There are as many paths to God as there are feet to walk them.

No name is the complete name.

No face is the complete face.

No path is the complete path.

These are just some thoughts I have about the interrelationship between Christianity, or Abrahamic Monotheism, and other cultures/religions that see the Creator/Source as being One.

Xuan

: ) Thank you Xuan and well said stuff by you. Although if I may kindly say where you say.

If one takes away the human attributes from God, then it’s no longer called monotheism, or even theism. Theism implies a god with anthromorphic attributes so the god will be worshipped, praised, obeyed. If the god doesn’t have these traits, then it’s simply not called a god.

I’d kindly disagree with you on even having (out of neccesity?) giving anthropomorphic attributes to a diety (if your thinking physical features like a torso with four limbs).I think ascribing anthropomorphic features isn’t so much important as…asrcribing features of “entity-hood” (a heavily philosophical undertaking might I add ). What we call experience,consciousness,perception, faith ,emotions and loveare a starting point…but I think that a even before any of those,in some combination life,existence and essence has to precede first,imo. Maybe there’s a biconditionality in there ?.

Then again when you believe in a personal God like Jesus,it’s different Take into account apotheosis,you see.

If you don’t mind me asking and if you don’t find it detracting (as far as you know) what is Daoism’s take on love,in particular?.

 

[Xuan]

: ) Thank you Xuan and well said stuff by you. Although if I may kindly say where you say.

I’d kindly disagree with you on even having (out of neccesity?) giving anthropomorphic attributes to a diety (if your thinking physical features like a torso with four limbs).I think ascribing anthropomorphic features isn’t so much important as…asrcribing features of “entity-hood” (a heavily philosophical undertaking might I add ). What we call experience,consciousness,perception, faith ,emotions and loveare a starting point…but I think that a even before any of those,in some combination life,existence and essence has to precede first,imo. Maybe there’s a biconditionality in there ?.

Then again when you believe in a personal God like Jesus,it’s different Take into account apotheosis,you see.

If you don’t mind me asking and if you don’t find it detracting (as far as you know) what is Daoism’s take on love,in particular?.

Hi sidetrack,

A point well taken about physical attributes. I was thinking more about mental attributes - thinking, reasoning, wanting, etc. Sorry about the miscommunication.

In Daoism the three principal virtues are:

Loving compassion
Moderation
Humility

In Daoism, as well as Buddhism, the first one is usually translated in english as simply “compassion.” but it’s much more than that. It springs from the interconnectedness of everyone and everything.

Moderation has as much to do with misusing natural resources as it has to do with personal behavior.

Humility is about knowing one’s place in the context of everything. It’s why most Asians tend not to be loud and obnoxious.

Regarding your mention of syncretism in a previous post, Asians generally tend not to have a problem with it; Chinese culture is generally a mix of Daoism, Confusionism, and Buddhism. I know that many Hindus (Sanatana Dharma) readily accept Christ and see him as equivalent to Krishna. They don’t think too highly of the God of the Old Testament, though.

Xuan