Divine view

[Loona Wynd]

So, one thing I think that's important when it comes to discussing religion is view of deity. Now I am a hard polytheist, that means I see every god as an individual, and don't believe in archetypes.

I see the divine as this:

Great Mother &Great Father (Creators)

Other Gods from pantheons

what about you?  

[Jezehbelle]

Basically, I see them as the Divine Male and Divine Female.

Gods from past pantheons have just been, and are, expressions of different sides to the God and Goddess. They're part of each other and part of the universe/nature.  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

Soft polytheist coupled with pantheism. However, I don't think that archetypal deities is automatically coupled with soft polytheism - more like dualism. Great Mother and Great Father honestly sound kinda archetypal to me.  

[Anabis]

I'm kinda a weird one. I see the deities as al part of some being out there some where, but at the same time different and individual of every other.

Like, I know Anubis shares work with Hades and other Death Deities, but there's still only ONE Anubis, No other Deity shares his attitude/persona or how he's known. (Hades can't claim he's from Egypt, for example.)  

[Starlock]

Heh. To put it simply, I believe that ideas and descriptions about the divine are simply that. Just as a description of a pencil is not the pencil itself, nor are descriptions of the divine the divine itself. Thus I see every single description and idea of the divine as equally valid. Each describes something of this fundamentally ineffable source that oft forms the basis of all religions. Some of them are more or less logical and sensible when puzzled into the rest of my worldview... and based upon that I choose ideas and descriptions of the divine that are more consistent with my current worldview.

Currently that's lead me to a rather complex view. First there is unified multiplicity (aka, blend of mono and polytheism). Everything in the universe, divine or otherwise, is both/either singular or multiple depending on what scale you're talking about. A typical human perspective favors multiplicity; we see things as discreet objects that are seperate from one another. From other scales, however, they are not. View things from a vastly larger or smaller perspective and the seperation dissolves and everything becomes one. To illustrate, you will recognize the individual trees in a forest from the ground, but from high in the air you will only see the forest. The divine is just like that. It's about perspective. Personally, I usually deal with the multiplicity since its scale is more appropriate for day-to-day living than using the scales needed to begin to grasp the unified aspects of the divine. I always keep in mind the unity, though, in the sense that I believe all things are intimately interconnected.

Second, there's the old immanance versus transcendence issue. This characteristic depends more on a concept you could call 'directness of influence' or some such. But this post is enough as it is... if someone calls me on this maybe I'll finish the post. sweatdrop  

[Kain Wynd]

Starlock

Heh. To put it simply, I believe that ideas and descriptions about the divine are simply that. Just as a description of a pencil is not the pencil itself, nor are descriptions of the divine the divine itself. Thus I see every single description and idea of the divine as equally valid. Each describes something of this fundamentally ineffable source that oft forms the basis of all religions. Some of them are more or less logical and sensible when puzzled into the rest of my worldview... and based upon that I choose ideas and descriptions of the divine that are more consistent with my current worldview.

Currently that's lead me to a rather complex view. First there is unified multiplicity (aka, blend of mono and polytheism). Everything in the universe, divine or otherwise, is both/either singular or multiple depending on what scale you're talking about. A typical human perspective favors multiplicity; we see things as discreet objects that are seperate from one another. From other scales, however, they are not. View things from a vastly larger or smaller perspective and the seperation dissolves and everything becomes one. To illustrate, you will recognize the individual trees in a forest from the ground, but from high in the air you will only see the forest. The divine is just like that. It's about perspective. Personally, I usually deal with the multiplicity since its scale is more appropriate for day-to-day living than using the scales needed to begin to grasp the unified aspects of the divine. I always keep in mind the unity, though, in the sense that I believe all things are intimately interconnected.

Second, there's the old immanance versus transcendence issue. This characteristic depends more on a concept you could call 'directness of influence' or some such. But this post is enough as it is... if someone calls me on this maybe I'll finish the post. sweatdrop

By all means, do continue. smile

twisted  

[The Bookwyrm]

I think my views on divinity have become convoluted, and may actually be in the process of changing, but let's see if perhaps I atriculate it without sounding like a blithering idiot. razz

While I believe in archetypes, I view them as a means of soliciting the help of the most qualified and most willing deity when I'm uncertain of whom I should be working.

I definately believe that each deity is unique, that one deity does not go by a variety of names (CuChullain is glaring at the back of my neck to make sure I've got the point on that one). They all have commonalities, but they each have their unique quirks that seperates them from all of the others. That said, however, I believe that each of them is a part of a much larger whole. As a really horrid analogy since I can't think of anything better, think of Voltron. Each deity functions as an individual, but combines with the others to form a sort of super deity.  

[Aiste Spirit]

Gypsy Blue

I think my views on divinity have become convoluted, and may actually be in the process of changing, but let's see if perhaps I atriculate it without sounding like a blithering idiot. razz

While I believe in archetypes, I view them as a means of soliciting the help of the most qualified and most willing deity when I'm uncertain of whom I should be working.

I definately believe that each deity is unique, that one deity does not go by a variety of names (CuChullain is glaring at the back of my neck to make sure I've got the point on that one). They all have commonalities, but they each have their unique quirks that seperates them from all of the others. That said, however, I believe that each of them is a part of a much larger whole. As a really horrid analogy since I can't think of anything better, think of Voltron. Each deity functions as an individual, but combines with the others to form a sort of super deity.

Lol nice and interesting way to put it. Voltron.. Haha. I used to love that show. So cool. Anyways.

My view of the divine is rather undeveloped. It's whatever is there. If God is there, he's divine, if deities are there, that's divine. Whatever is of the spiritual, energy or higher dimension frequency than we are, is what I'd call divine. No reason to be picky really, because I have no reason to know for sure. That doesn't stop me from trying to communicate with, or summon the help of God (or the superdeity aka Voltron), or many various more specialized ones when I need or want to.  

[PoeticVengeance]

My outlook as an Etherist is pretty simple.


Aspects are not dieties per say, and while there might be strong spiritual entities that some refer to or treat as dieties, the Aspects are none of these.

Aspects are the Spiritual Reflections of concepts, and elemental forces in our universe.

They are the conceptual representation, and the actual Etheral energy and power of these concepts and elements.

From the Basics

Aspect of Hydrogen, an Aspect of Gravity.


To the slightly less basic but still elemental:

There is an Aspect of Stars, an Aspect of Ice, an Aspect of Wood...etc etc


To the semi conceptual but still elemental:

Aspect of Momentum, Aspect of Heat


To the conceptual but measureable:

Aspect of Strength, Aspect of Intelligence


To the fully conceptual:

Aspect of Misdirection, Aspect of Clarity, Aspect of Metamorphesis...etc etc


To the Abstractly conceptual

Aspect of War, Aspect of Math, etc etc


These Aspects can have a sentience to them, but don't usually. They just tend to be a force of nature really. They exist and they move a certain way.

Its hard to put to words I guess. Not really self aware, but at the same time they possess their own unique level fo awareness.

So I guess Aspects are kind of Gods, kind of not.


I tend to treat both Brimstar and Luna like deities, but they are a Star/Radiance Aspect and Moon/Change Aspect respectively. (There does appear to be combination aspects too. Brimstar is one noticable one.)  

[Kain Wynd]

Explain to me what Etherism is. I've never heard of that term before, and I'm all sorts of curious.

twisted  

[Starlock]

Kain Wynd

By all means, do continue. smile

twisted

Why the demonic smiley? sweatdrop Part of the reason I didn't continue is because this idea I came to relatively recently as a way to 'rectify' so to speak the apparent incompatibility of transcendence and immanence. If all ideas about the divine to describe the divine, they're all in some sense true. So how can they work together in some way?

Basically what I thought is that something transcendent is not part of the natural world. However, unless something is in some way connected, it can have no influence. Seems logical to me that a wholely transcendent deity could not possibly have any direct influence on natural processes. There has to be some mediator. Perhaps that is where transcendent deities come in? They are the ones who can directly influence the world since they are directly connected TO it.

At any rate, I don't typically honor the transcendent aspect of the divine even though I acknowledge that there probably is one. It can't touch me and I can't really touch it, even though it's sort of everywhere and nowhere. Makes more sense to deal with the immanent parts that I *can* understand... natural forces like Sun, Wind, Rain, and whatnot. (shrugs)  

[PoeticVengeance]

Kain Wynd

Explain to me what Etherism is. I've never heard of that term before, and I'm all sorts of curious.

A summary of the philosophy and magic usage system of Etherism: click


I wouldn't call it a full religion yet because its following is ridiculously small.

There will be a wiki at some point when me, Nihl and Chewy get off our lazy asses.

^^

Quote:

twisted

Itchy emote finger?  

[Kain Wynd]

Much obliged. I think I'll nab a printout of that bit of info and file that into my little notebook.

And no, I just happen to like that smilie above all others.

twisted  

[PoeticVengeance]

Kain Wynd

Much obliged. I think I'll nab a printout of that bit of info and file that into my little notebook.

No problem. The Wiki should carry greater detail, when I get around to it.

Quote:

And no, I just happen to like that smilie above all others.

twisted

Well it is a fun smilie, can't argue there.