Classical / Philosophical Theism
Although there is a potentially infinite variation in what people mean by "God," there are some common attributes which are often discussed, especially among those who come from a generally Western tradition of religion and philosophy. Because this type of theism relies heavily upon a long framework of intersecting religious and philosophical inquiry, it is commonly referred to as "classical theism," "standard theism," or better still "philosophical theism."
Occasionally one might see it referred to as just "theism," with some arguing that there isn't really a "general" sense of theism which is simply belief in at least one god of some sort. Instead, theism is supposed to refer to a god holding traditional Christian qualities like omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Some have gone even farther: James Orr, in his book "Christian View of God and the World," argued that theism must properly include beliefs like trinitarianism and revelation because of the success and dominance of the Christian religion which also includes them.
Thus, religions like Judaism and Islam and even Christian denominations which stress unitarianism would not qualify as "theistic" - but that is obviously nonsensical. It is also just as nonsensical to exclude from the domain of theism other religions which incorporate belief in gods which don't happen to have the characteristics normally attributed to God in the Western philosophical and religious traditions. The ancient Greeks were theists, even if their gods were different from the God of Christianity.
What we are discussing here is not theism in general but a type of theism - the type developed by a particular tradition of theologians and philosophers in order to explain a particular tradition of religious experiences. This type of theism and this understanding of God are not inherently privileged enough to merit the broad label of "theism," but they are common enough to merit specific attention here.
Of course, even that is disputed by those who contend that this purely intellectual understanding of God is weak and ineffectual, unable to truly explain and conceptualize the reality of God. The God of the philosophers, it is argued, is not the God of faith - and attempts to identify one with the other will inevitably fail to help a person understand, much less critique, the positions of the religiously devout.
This is another reason why it is perhaps preferable to use the term philosophical theism rather than just theism - we are discussing particular theoretical and philosophical concepts which may, but need not, impact actual theistic beliefs. Philosophy and religion are not the same things, although they do overlap in many areas.
A philosophical discussion about attributes of God which have been developed by philosophers and theologians may be interesting and it may provide some insight into the structure and coherence of the religious beliefs of actual people. On the other hand, it may not - their beliefs have to be addressed individually and cannot always be lumped together with all of the other beliefs that philosophers think belong in the Western tradition.
What is Monotheism?
The word monotheism comes from the Greek monos, which means one, and theos, which means god. Thus, monotheism is a belief in the existence of a single god. Monotheism is usually contrasted with polytheism, which is the belief in many gods, and atheism, which is the absence of any belief in gods. Because monotheism is founded upon the idea that there is only one god, it is common for believers to also think that this god created all of reality and is totally self-sufficient, without any dependency upon any other being. This is what we find in the largest monotheistic religious systems: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism.
Most monotheistic systems tend to be exclusive in nature - what this means is that they don't simply believe in and worship a single god, but they also deny the existence of the gods of any other religious faiths. Occasionally we can find a monotheistic religion treating other alleged gods as merely being aspects or incarnations of their one, supreme god; this, however, is relatively infrequent and occurs more during a transition between polytheism and monotheism when the older gods need to be explained away.
As a consequence of this exclusivity, monotheistic religions have historically displayed less religious tolerance than polytheistic religions. The latter has been able to incorporate the gods and beliefs of other faiths with relative ease; the former can only do so without admitting it and while denying any reality or validity to others' beliefs. The form of monotheism which is traditionally most common in the West (and which is too often confused with theism in general) is the belief in a personal god which emphasizes that this god is a conscious mind that is immanent in nature, humanity, and the values which it has created.
This is unfortunate because it fails to acknowledge the existence of great variety not only within monotheism generally but also within monotheism in the West. On the one extreme we have the uncompromising monotheism of Islam where God is depicted as undifferentiated, eternal, unequaled, unbegotten, and in no way anthropomorphic (indeed, anthropomorphism - attributing human qualities to Allah - is considered blasphemous in Islam).
At the other end, we have Christianity which posits a very anthropomorphic God which is three persons in one. As practiced, monotheistic religions worship very different types of gods: just about the only thing they have in common is the focus on a single god. The origin of monotheism is unclear.
The first recorded monotheistic system arose in Egypt during the rule of Akhenaten, but it did not long survive his death. Some suggest that Moses, if he existed, brought monotheism to the ancient Hebrews, but it is possible that he was still henotheistic or monolatrous. Some evangelical Christians regard Mormonism as a modern example of monolatry because Mormonism teaches the existence of many gods of many worlds yet worships only the one of this planet.
Various theologians and philosophers through time have believed that monotheism "evolved" from polytheism, arguing that polytheistic faiths were more primitive and monotheistic faiths more advanced - culturally, ethically, and philosophically. Although it may be true that polytheistic beliefs are older than monotheistic beliefs, this view is heavily value-laden and cannot be readily disentangled from attitudes of cultural and religious bigotry.
What are Henotheism and Monolatry?
Henotheism is based upon the Greek roots heis orhenos, which means one and theos which means god. It’s not a synonym for monotheism, even though it has the same etymological meaning. The word monolatry is based upon the Greek roots monos, which means one and latreia, which means service or religious worship. It seems to have been first used by Julius Wellhausen to described a type of polytheism in which only one god is worshipped even though the existence of other gods is accepted. What is Deism?
Deism is actually a form of monotheism, but distinct enough in character and development to warrant its own section. In addition to adopting general monotheism, deists also accept the specific ideas that the single existing god is personal in nature and transcendent from the created universe.
However, they reject the idea that this god is immanent, which is to say presently active in the created universe. Deism originally developed as a philosophic and religious challenge to Christian orthodoxy in 17th century England, eventually becoming an important influence on political and religious philosophy through the 18th century. As a systematic philosophy, deism was first developed by Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1583-1648).
The doctrine became very popular among Enlightenment intellectuals who were finding less and less reason to believe in the traditional gods but who also didn't feel right in rejecting theism totally. Many of those involved with the American revolution against England and with setting up the American government after independence were deists, either explicitly or in their sympathies, and those deistic beliefs show through in their political ideas and writings.
According to the deistic view of reality, God created the universe but then divorced itself from creation and simply contemplates it now. Sometimes this is referred to as the "watchmaker" god - a god which wound up the universe like a watch and now lets it run on its own. Thus, deists opted for perhaps the most extreme form of transcendence available, completely rejecting the idea of God being immanent and involved in any manner with creation and humanity. The universe is believed to be rational and ordered because that is how God wanted it to be; God, in turn, is also a rational being with rational desires, rational goals, and rational methods which are understandable through human reason.
It is perhaps obvious why such a god would be appealing to Enlightenment rationalists. Typically, deists were and are empiricists rather than rationalists when it comes to religious knowledge ("rationalism" in this sense refers to the idea that knowledge can be achieved through mental activity alone).
What this means is that knowledge about God cannot be discovered through revelation or supernatural, religious experiences. Instead, deists have been heavily influenced by the philosophy of natural religion, according to which knowledge about God can be discerned through God's creation - thus, study of nature, the world, the universe, and humanity is akin to a study of God as well. Deists were and are opposed to religious orthodoxy, dogma, and doctrine, all of which they have argued lead inevitably to corruption and intolerance.
Deism acknowledges that most, if not all, religions contain within them a basic core of rational truth and understanding of God; nevertheless, all have also fallen away due to the corrupting influence of supernatural religious beliefs and superstitions. Insofar as a religious doctrine or practice does not harm anyone, however, deists argue that they should be tolerated as cultural practices and not treated as something blasphemous or heretical.
Deists shared many important sentiments with the rationalist side of the Protestant Reformation, rejecting various trappings and liturgical practices of Roman Catholicism as being too close to the irrational religious beliefs of paganism. However, deists also rejected the very pious and overly emotional forms of worship which came to characterize many Protestant churches - once again, in deism, religion is a matter of reason and rationality rather than highly emotional religious faith.
One very different form of deism has been labeled "Deistic Supernaturalism" and has been supported by philosophers like S¿ren Kierkegaard. According to this system, God is not only transcendent and external to nature (as with deism), but is also the "superhuman and supernatural revealer of values." Denying that God's nature can be found via human experience, Deistic Supernaturalists argue that God can be understood via direct revelations from God. Communion with God can thus be established via activities like prayer or meditation.
Although deism at one point came to be a dominant position among the intelligentsia of England, France, Germany, and even America, today it is not nearly so fashionable as it once was. For one thing, people who are inclined to reject belief in traditional gods can become atheists and reject belief in gods altogether - atheism does not suffer the same amount of social stigma which it once did. For another thing, when deism was popular, people regarded the universe as a finely tuned machine, like a watch.
Today, however, that picture of the universe is not so common; instead, the universe is seen as more dynamic, chaotic, and more in continual development, a conception which does not lend itself to the development of deism.
What is Polytheism?
The term polytheism is based on the Greek root's poly, which means many, and theos, which means god. Thus, the label polytheism is used where a plurality of gods is acknowledged and/or worshipped. Through the course of human history, polytheistic religions of one sort or another have been a dominant majority by far. Typically, any individual god in a polytheistic system is a member of a larger, coherent group (called a pantheon) rather than being totally separate and unrelated.
Polytheism usually involves belief in the several gods of a particular national culture; other gods in other cultures may be acknowledged as existing but ignored, or they might be treated as different cultural manifestations of the same divinities. It is also common that each individual god represents a unique value, personifies some aspect of humanity, and/or maintains stewardship over some facet of nature.
Thus, there are gods of fertility, of rivers, of health, and even of anger. Within polytheism, an adherent wishing to obtain something (fertility, health) or survive something (river crossing) is expected to pray to that particular god rather than to others who do not have dominion in that area. Other structural considerations of a pantheon include the separation of authority. In some polytheistic systems one god is dominant in power and authority over the other gods, but not supreme in a way that warrants special worship from humans.
In some polytheistic systems the gods themselves may be subordinate to other forces of nature or fate - just because they are gods doesn't mean that they are supernatural or transcendent. Thus, polytheism commonly posits a division of labor and responsibility within the divine realm similar to that which we find in the human world. Although polytheistic systems postulate a coherent group, this does not mean that they do not acknowledge the existence of gods outside the religion's pantheon. When faced with gods from other cultures and religions, there are usually three different responses. One is to claim that some or all of the outside gods are really the same as the gods currently worshipped, just with different names. Any new aspects or powers are simply incorporated into the older gods.
A second response takes some of the new gods and adopts them as new members of the pantheon. In this manner, the pantheon can gradually grow. A final response is to accept that the other gods exist, but not worship them in any active manner. Because polytheistic systems are accepting of the existence of gods from other religions and cultures, polytheism has tended to offer more religious freedom than monotheism has. This greater tolerance, along with the idea that if there is anything supernatural behind our universe then a multiplicity of divinities makes at least as much sense as a single god, may make polytheism a bit more attractive and appealing than traditional forms of monotheism. Nevertheless, a modern scientific perspective will tend to reject polytheism because of its incompatibility with our understanding of nature.
If there really were different, independent gods in charge of all the different aspects of reality, then we shouldn't necessarily have a set of natural laws which are common to all parts of reality. The laws of physics would not need to apply to chemistry and the laws of chemistry would not need to apply to biology, and so on. Scientific order would find no basis if multiple gods were working at potentially cross purposes. A modified polytheism might be theoretically possible, however, if we imagine a committee of unknown gods created the universe and somehow managed to agree upon a set of common standards, and then all separated to take over their respective departments.
This analogy to the human experience of committees and management, however, causes polytheism to lose much of its original attractiveness - the idea of the universe being created and run in such a manner is enough to incite nightmares.
What is Pantheism?
The term pantheism is built upon the Greek roots pan, which means all, and theos, which means God; thus, pantheism is either the belief that the universe is God and worthy of worship, or that God is the sum total of all there is and that the combined substances, forces, and natural laws which we see around us are but manifestations of God.
There are several named categories of pantheism that can be found in academic literature:
Panpsychism: Nature as a whole is imbued with consciousness.
Theomonistic Pantheism: Only God exists, and the independent existence of nature is denied - also referred to as acosmism (a-cos-mism, or "no-world")
Physiomonistic Pantheism: Only nature or the universe exist, but they are referred to with the term "God" - thus, God is denied having independent existence.
Immanent-Transcendant Pantheism: God works through and is revealed through nature (also sometimes called Idealism).
Transcendental or Mystical Pantheism Most common form of panentheism explained below. It should be clear that there is a great deal of variety within the pantheistic tradition - far too much variety to allow us to make many generalizations about pantheists overall or pantheism as a whole. Many common beliefs which are often associated with pantheism - like reincarnation or an afterlife - are actually only features of culturally specific manifestations of certain forms of pantheism.
One generalization which might be made, however, is that in truly pantheistic belief systems, only God exists and all that exists is God. Although there are a number of differences among the different forms of pantheism, most argue that the totality of reality - you, the computer, everything - is a part of God.
Slightly modified versions might argue that the universe itself or perhaps the laws of nature are God while objects such as us and the computer are manifestations of those laws and principles. Sometimes there can be confusion between pantheism and polytheism because some pantheists use polytheism as a metaphoric way of approaching the cosmic divinity, they believe in. Some simply feel the need for symbols and personages to mediate their relationship with nature and the cosmos. Pantheists can, however, also relate directly to the universe and to nature, without the need for any intermediary symbols or deities. Early Pantheism can be thought of as a natural development of animism, arguing that everything is part of a universal spirit rather than that everything has spirits.
On the other hand, pantheism has also tended to resist the personal and anthropomorphic depictions which typify the spirits in animism - and not all pantheists have regarded the "god" of the universe to be spiritual in nature. Anaximander of Miletos, for example, was very much a materialistic pantheist. On the other hand, Xenophanes, one of the founders of the Eleatic school of philosophy, argued for pantheism from observations of the unity of nature; while he did not ascribe a personality to nature itself, he did ascribe to it a spiritual quality which was more "real" than the material world we see around us. This anti-materialistic form of pantheism would become the dominant form until the modern era. Pantheism is also associated with the Egyptian religion when Ra, Isis, and Osiris were identified with all existence.
The pantheism of Hinduism, however, is much more widely known and recognized. Here, the impersonal source of all existence is Brahman. The separation of everything into different objects and persons is but a mere illusion - the true reality is the spiritual, incorporeal, and impersonal reality of Brahman, a reality that we can really know nothing about. Indeed, some of the earliest evidence of pantheism can be found in the Vedas of Brahmanism, perhaps the oldest existing religion, dating back to 1000 BCE. There are also forms of modern Christianity which describe God as the "ground of all being," a very impersonal and non-anthropomorphic characterization.
Pantheism & Christianity Although it may not be immediately obvious, pantheistic considerations and principles have had an important impact on the development of Christian theology. This is because pantheism played a significant role in Greek philosophy, and much of that, in turn, would be incorporated into Christianity during the early and medieval periods. The specific means by which this occurred was through the Neoplatonism.
This was a school of Greek philosophy which began under the leadership of Plotinus in the 3rd century CE and which furthered development many of the ideas originally ascribed to Plato. According to Plotinus, true reality originated in an indescribable One from which the rest of the universe emanated as a sequence of lesser beings. Christian adherents of Neoplatonism identified the One as God. One of the most important of the Christian Neoplatonists was Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, whose work was very influential in the Middle Ages. Many other early Christian theologians, including Augustine, were also deeply influenced by arguments and ideas of Neoplatonism. Although pantheism has played an important role in the development of the Christian doctrine of God as a creator of the universe and immanent in the universe, explicit pantheism has been rejected by orthodox Christian theologians for three reasons.
First, even though some forms of pantheism have been personal and anthropocentric in nature, most tend towards a very impersonal concept of God which is at odds with the Christian belief that God is a person with personal attributes.
Second, pantheism requires a rejection of the doctrine that God is transcendent to and creator of all existence. Christian theology has long had difficulty dealing with the dual doctrines of transcendence and immanence because taken to the logical extremes, each excludes the possibility of the other even though traditional Christian doctrine requires both be true. Although a resolution to this tension by eliminating one or the other might be appealing to some, Christianity has consistently rejected such a choice as heretical.
Thirdly, pantheism tends to exclude the possibilities of both human and divine freedom. The association of God with nature and with natural laws would suggest that God has no freedom to do other than what those laws predict - God cannot, for example, suddenly cause gravity to work backward without ceasing to be Nature. At the same time, if all humans are incorporated within God and are part of God, then it is difficult to understand where and how we might have a moral responsibility for our actions. Indeed, does it even make sense to abhor the presence of evil when that, too, is a part of God?
Modern Pantheism
The term pantheist itself seems to have been coined in 1705 by John Toland in his book "Socinianism Truly Stated" to describe someone who believes that everything is God. On this basis in 1732, the Christian apologist Daniel Waterland used the noun "pantheism" for the first time, condemning the belief as "scandalously bad... scarce differing from... Atheism." Nevertheless, many philosophers through the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries adopted pantheism in some form, including Spinoza, Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling.
It was Spinoza, however, who developed one of the most systematic explanations and arguments for pantheism, writing that God and Nature were but two words for the exact same thing and that nothing could possibly exist outside of that single, unlimited substance.
The sentiment of pantheism has had a powerful influenced the thoughts and works of poets, philosophers, mystics, and extremely spiritual people. Notable among pantheistic poets are Goethe, Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Emerson. Many modern poets consider pantheism as part of their worldview. However, this poetic form of pantheism never developed into a formal doctrine.
Scientific Pantheism
Those pantheists today who argue that the universe is their god tend to be naturalistic or scientific pantheists. When scientific pantheists say they revere the universe, they are not talking about a supernatural being whom they worship. Instead, they are referring to the way human senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us. When the attribute of worship is removed, however, the validity of labeling the natural universe as "god" is often called into question.
There seem to be some grounds for the challenge because this "god" is very unlike the gods normally worshipped in the West, and its only purpose appears to be to express some emotional connection or reaction to the universe at large. On the other hand, our experiences with anthropomorphic and personal gods in the West should not blind us to the fact that there are many different ways to define the term.
Impersonal and non-anthropomorphic gods can be found in many traditions. In Islam, anthropomorphism is considered blasphemous, and Allah is described as totally unlike anything else in existence. Problems in Pantheism has obviously exerted a strong attraction for many people throughout human history. There are many reasons for this - for example, it allows one to get past many of the difficult problems associated with anthropocentric gods whose personalities and even personhood seem to conflict with reality as we experience it. Pantheism can suffer from certain problems, however. The acceptance of the presence of God everywhere and in everything comes at the tremendous cost of making God the sole and only actor. Nothing and no one else exists.
If we love God, it is really only God loving God - in other words, an instance of narcissism. On the other hand, if absolutely everything is believed to be a part of God, then there is the possible contradiction that God can simultaneously be aware of something and not be aware of something (i.e., when children do not know something, but their parents do). The only way to resolve that would be to deny that the children "really" lack knowledge or that they "really" exist at all, neither of which are very satisfying answers. Another problem stems from the question of why exactly we would need to apply the label "god" to the universe itself. We already have a perfectly good term: "universe."
What new information does "god" supply? At most, it might describe a person's emotional reaction to the universe, but that seems to cause unnecessary confusion with more common uses of the word "god." A final problem comes from the issue of good and evil. If the pantheistic god is the sum of its parts, then it is certainly responsible for all the good which is done and is much better than any one person. However, it is also responsible for all the evil committed and is much more wicked than any one person. All of the good in this god cannot acquit it of the incredible evil which has occurred. What does it say about the nature and quality of this "god" if we see this god in the horrible suffering and pain which creatures on this planet experience?
What is Panentheism?
The term panentheism is Greek for "all-in-God," pan-en-theos. A panentheistic belief system is one which posits a god that interpenetrates every part of nature but is nevertheless fully distinct from nature. So this god is part of nature but still retains an independent identity.
The term panentheism appears to have been originally used by Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1832), although aspects of it can be traced all of the ways back to Plato. Fuller elaborations of panentheistic beliefs can be found in the development of German Idealism in the 19th century, particularly in the work of Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling, and in the development of Process Theism in the 20th century, for example in the work of Alfred North Whitehead.
There is an understandable tendency to confuse panentheism with pantheism or even to consider panentheism to be a type of pantheism - a problem exacerbated by the fact that we simply don't hear the term panentheism very often and most people are unfamiliar with it.
What is the difference between standard pantheism and panentheism?
It is true that both panentheists and pantheists share the view that the universe and every natural thing in it is pervaded by divinity. However, since panentheism postulates that the universe is contained within God and not God in the universe, panentheists believe in a God who is present in everything but also extends beyond the universe. In other words, God is the universe but is also greater than the universe. Often panentheists also believe that this God has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally.
Pantheists, on the other hand, believe that the universe itself is divine and do not believe in personal or creator gods. As a result, for those who are familiar with the concept, panentheism is a "middle way" between the extremes of impersonal pantheism in which personal freedom and creativity become nullified in an impersonal world, and extremes of philosophical theism in which the divine may be personal, but is too remote to be of any comfort or interest.
Panentheism differs from Deism, which only postulates a god separate from nature. It differs from pantheism in that the latter identifies God with nature, although it agrees with pantheism that the god includes nature as a part of its being. Probably the most definitive and systematic explanation of panentheism in modern times can be found in the writings of Charles Hartshorne, a follower of Whitehead. According to Hartshorne, panentheism can best be understood through an analogy: just as a single organism exists both as as a collection of semiautonomous, individual cells and as an autonomous individual who is more than jut a collection of cells, God can be seen as both a collection of all the constituent parts of reality and as "something more" than the universe itself. Although we, along with the rest of existence, can be thought of as part of God's "body," God's mind or consciousness extends beyond that body and causes God to be more than just a collection of parts.
As parts of God, our freedom is not absolute - just as the freedom of cells in our body is not absolute. At the same time, our actions and thoughts are not dependent upon or controlled by God any more than we are able to consciously control and direct the actions of our individual cells. We may be more than our cells, but we depend upon our cells acting independently of our minds in order for us to grow and even to be in the first place. What is Agnostic Theism? Whereas atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. The Greek roots of the term are a which means without and gnosis which means "knowledge" - hence, agnosticism literally means "without knowledge," but in the context where it is normally used it means: without knowledge of the existence of gods.*
An agnostic is a person who does not claim [absolute] knowledge of the existence of god(s). Agnosticism can be classified in a similar manner to atheism: "Weak" agnosticism is simply not knowing or having knowledge about god(s) - it is a statement about personal knowledge. The weak agnostic may not know for sure whether god(s) exist but does not preclude that such knowledge can be obtained. "Strong" agnosticism, on the other hand, is believing that knowledge about god(s) is not possible - this, then, is a statement about the possibility of knowledge. Because atheism and theism deal with belief and agnosticism deals with knowledge, they are actually independent concepts. This means that it is possible to be an agnostic and a theist. One can have a wide range of beliefs in gods and also not be able to or wish to claim to know for sure whether those gods definitely exist. It may seem strange at first to think that a person might believe in the existence of a god without also claiming to know that their god exists, even if we define knowledge somewhat loosely; but upon further reflection, it turns out that this isn't so odd after all.
Many, many people who believe in the existence of a god do so on faith, and this faith is contrasted with the types of knowledge we normally acquire about the world around us. Indeed, believing in their god because of faith is treated as a virtue, something which we should be willing to do instead of insisting on rational arguments and empirical evidence. Because this faith is contrasted with knowledge, and in particular the sort of knowledge we develop through reason, logic, and evidence, then this sort of theism cannot be said to be based upon knowledge. People believe, but through faith, not knowledge. If they really do mean that they have faith and not knowledge, then their theism must be described as a type of agnostic theism. One version of agnostic theism has been called "agnostic realism."
A proponent of this view was Herbert Spencer, who wrote in his book First Principles (1862) By continually seeking to know and being continually thrown back with a deepened conviction of the impossibility of knowing, we may keep alive the consciousness that it is alike our highest wisdom and our highest duty to regard that through which all things exist as The Unknowable. This is a much more philosophical form of agnostic theism than that described above - it is also probably a bit more uncommon, at least in the West today. This sort of full-blown agnostic theism, where belief in the very existence of a god is independent of any claimed knowledge, must be distinguished from other forms of theism where agnosticism may play a small role. After all, even though a person might claim to know for sure that their god exists, that doesn't mean that they can also claim to know everything there is to know about their god. Indeed, a great many things about this god may be hidden from the believer - how many Christians have stated that their god "works in mysterious ways"?
If we allow the definition of agnosticism to become rather broad and include a lack of knowledge about a god, then this is a sort of situation where agnosticism is playing a role in someone's theism. It is not, however, an example of agnostic theism.
What is Impersonal Idealism?
In the philosophy of Impersonal Idealism, universal ideals are equated with the concept of a god. One of this philosophy's spokesmen, Edward Gleason Spaulding, put it thus: "God is the totality of values, both existent and subsistent and of those agencies and efficiencies with which these values are identical." In this fashion, "God" is conceived of as being an impersonal system of values worthy of veneration and worship - the eternal Platonic values like justice, beauty, truth and goodness would be fitting examples here. Because those Platonic Forms are regarded as eternally valid ideals or principles, such a god cannot be a person or conscious mind.
Impersonal Idealism can be contrasted with traditional forms of theism which purport to worship a source of such values rather than the values themselves. Impersonal Idealism can also be contrasted with the sort of monotheism where people worship a personal god. The gods of different types of Impersonal Idealism are nothing like those of traditional, orthodox Christianity and Judaism - in the latter, the gods have at the very least personal qualities like intention, desire, and goals which a "totality of values" cannot.
Even Allah in Islam is very different, despite the fact that anthropomorphism is considered blasphemous for Muslims and ideally, Allah is denied to have any qualities in common with humans. Despite these differences, Idealism itself has played an important role in the development of the theologies of many religious belief systems, and it has also been very influential in the philosophy of religion through much of the 18th century.
For example, idealism has argued that the ultimate reality is actually spirit or mind; as a consequence, many religions have developed over time an anti-materialist stance by adopting the position, for example, that our true natures are spirit rather than matter.* The influence of idealism on the philosophy of religion is due primarily to the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a German philosopher who saw the progress of human history as a progress of spirit, with objective spirit (law, ethics) overcoming subjective spirit (individual psychology) and objective spirit being overcome by absolute spirit (the union of God and man).
http://atheism.about.com/od/theismtheists/p/theismvarieties.htm
How Can I write my own Spells?
by Wyrdy
The art of Warping Causality or Sorcery, as it is better known, is all about having a clear objective and a result that are desired with a burning intensity. The words and objects used, if any, are just the tools to send the energy towards its desired outcome or target. I personally have an abject dislike of the word "Spell" as it gives this art a trivialness, that is, for me, something it does not deserve.
For a healing to be consumed with passion, for a hex with pure hatred, for a lover use emotions associated with this. You need to get very emotionally focuśed and see the desired result in full technicolour. You give a piece of yourself when performing this stuff and it can be very draining. Use what props you want, money, photos, a piece of the target's personal possessions. or hair; anything that can make the link from you to the desired result effective.Question on the Pentacle/Order of Appearance and the Elements?
Does animism have a god?
Animism is the belief that all things, albeit animal, vegetable or elemental, are animate. It's as simple as that.
Be Aware of Your Rights
If you think the Burning Times are long ago and remembered only in history books, you're wrong. Although a little more subtle than death, witches are still persecuted today in many ways and all over the world. In some places, women who are accused of Witchcraft are still stoned to death. Persecutions today are held in HR departments, Court rooms and even in public schools. Neo-pagans still face the threat of losing the right to practice their beliefs and must continually fight for Freedom of Religion.
You'll find more information the Path's pages.
http://www.paganspath.com/faqs.htm
What are "dedication" and "initiation" in Wicca?
What Is the Difference Between Invocation and Evocation
Basic Grounding and Centering
Introduction
When you ground yourself, you are either shedding your excess energy or replenishing yourself to balance your energy levels. Grounding helps to prevent the body from becoming too tired or energetic and can replenish your energy after doing spiritual work or magic.
Grounding
As with meditation, you can do this with or without people, or noise around you. Grounding is useful when you need to replenish lost energy, release excess energy, do an "energy oil change," or to balance your energy levels. But no matter which method you use, eating natural things such as fruits and vegetables for an hour after grounding will help finalize the process. To begin, follow the steps below:
To start, sit with your legs crossed sitting up straight. Relax your body and place your palms on your knees. Close your eyes and slow your breathing. Take deep, long breaths, in and out.
When you have been calmed, visualize you are a tree, sending roots from your feet deep down into the Earth and transforming your arms into long branches. Your hands become the leaves.
Release all your negative thoughts, worries, and old/excess energy. Push them down your roots, into the molten core of the Earth where they can be recycled and renewed.
Once you have completed that, gather energy through your leaves, and feel positive vibrations coursing through your trunk, and into your mind, body and spirit, balancing your energy. Continue to push the negative energy down through your roots; the energy system is a never-ending cycle.
Feel the power circulate in your blood stream and visualizing the power collecting into a bright ball of pure energy at your heart. Bathe and relax in the beauty of the natural energy, before slowly opening your eyes.
Centering
Centering allows someone to centralize his or her power someplace inside the body. This is beneficial because when casting a spell, you will be able to access 1 center of power instead of your power being spread across your body. Most people center themselves in the navel and I suggest that for now you do as well, but when you are more advanced you can put your center of power anywhere you wish. To begin, follow the steps below:
Begin by lying down and calming yourself; close your eyes and relax.
Next, visualize a black silhouette of your body with your energy as millions of glowing atoms bouncing around, lighting up your body.
Slowly start collecting the balls of light into one giant ball at your navel. Visualize the smaller balls of light being sucked into the bigger ball like a vacuum.
Once all of the small balls of light are gone, turn the larger ball into a solid, glowing, sphere. At this point, unless you want to do anything further, slowly open your eyes and enjoy your newly centered energy.
Suggested Assignment
I would suggest you do the grounding and centering exercises at least weekly, as it will offer many benefits in your life. Try doing the exercises before you next big test or work deadline, and hopefully you’ll be able to be more balanced and calmer when tackling the problem.
~Sinix~
https://www.spellsofmagic.com/coven_ritual.html?ritual=2571&coven=67
How to make and use Sigils
No comments:
Post a Comment