Personally, I think I'm technically a monotheist because I believe that there is only ONE GOD. However, I've been told I'm really a Henotheist because I acknowledge that the ONE GOD manifests as gods and angels and demons and rocks and animals and trees and other self-aware entities on purpose.
I find it alien after all these years of Working with gods, angels, and demons of various ranks that anyone would think there's no single unifying Source that exists within each of the other manifestations. Yet there are people who believe that Deity can only be experienced as multiple entities, that the embrace of monotheism itself somehow blinds a person to the "true nature" of Deity.
I think that's as limiting as the monotheist who rejects all other manifestations of God as delusional or demonic. Hermetic theology is monotheistic, yet makes room for many other gods. As a result, the Hermetic student can experience the multiplicity of the many gods and spirits, and still reclaim their divine race and value that comes from remembering the Source in whose image we were made. We can develop a bi-directional relationship between the Nous and our own minds, we can participate actively and consciously as observer and observed, we can play with the sprites and fairies, the gods and goddesses, and still maintain a unified existence within and as a manifestation of the Good.
We aren't limited to the forms and structures that happen to define "us" and "not us." We can see, from a unified perspective, that all that interacts does so in time to a tune that began long before we were born and will continue long after we've moved on. Insisting on limits to anything can only result in limitation.*
The point of Neo-Platonism and Hermetic magic is to understand who we are, and what it means to be made in the image of The Divine. Divinity is One, and it cannot be understood if the perceiver insists otherwise.
*This is, unfortunately, a "lesser truth." With Greater Truths, the opposite is also true. Insisting on "no limits" by itself does not result in "no limitation." It does, however, lead (more often than not) to methods of transcending limitations.
Head for the Red: The ongoing adventures and insights of a magician's attempts to accomplish the Great Work.
This is an excellent point. I am always surprised when people insist that god is "this way" (their idea of personality, appearance -- even gender) as though the divine can be packaged, labeled, given a single name, and then contemplated as though he/she/it is your neighbor Henry.
ReplyDeleteGod is beyond ego, identity, even what we would understand as thought. There is no reason why such a being or energy or entity would not tailor the way it is experienced by us based on our cultural referents and our current and long-term individual and societal needs.
Great post.
ReplyDeleteYou are not a Henotheist however. Henotheism is what most of the ancient Pagan world was. They worshiped one god but acknowledged the existence of others.
You are a monotheist pure and simple. You acknowledge one divine source who can and does manifest in different ways including as multiple beings also called Gods - which adds a bit to the confusion. This is not fundamentally different than the doctrine of the Trinity.
@ Norma, that's been my consistent experience of God.
ReplyDelete@Jason, thanks, the wikipedia page left me confused.
I think the theological concept that God is One but presents Himself in all different manners makes more sense than anything else. I can't help but conceive of a God who is One, undivided, and the root of everything, and who is big, vast, wise, understanding, patient, loving, and tolerant enough to recognize the difference in His creatures and their need for relationship with Him and accommodates by presenting Himself in all manners of terms that are more readily conceivable to us, as humans with finite and inadequate perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI've also seen the hand of God and all the many facets He presents to us work in many different types of peoples' and believers' lives in similar ways regardless of their creed, the name they've given Him, how they identify with Him, and the doctrines and practices they uphold. A sincere heart that thirsts for the pursuit of the Spirit seems to be the key ingredient.
I endorse the concept that God is one and multiple, or more precisely, everything, everything emanates from Him, so everything in all the worlds and all the planes is a manifestation of him, as well as the multiple gods and spirits, from the lesser to baser to the highest.
ReplyDeleteYou are a monotheist pure and simple. You acknowledge one divine source who can and does manifest in different ways including as multiple beings also called Gods - which adds a bit to the confusion. This is not fundamentally different than the doctrine of the Trinity.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with (more like tolerate) the general gist of RO's post, the bit here about his beliefs being fundamentally the same as the doctrine of the Trinity is very misleading.
The doctrine of the Trinity obviously comes out of Christianity, the fundamental belief of which is that the One God incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ, and in this incarnation, God the Father (the Source) revealed himself completely and totally.
While the two beliefs are similar, in that they both deal with the Source and its self-revelation, the two beliefs can only be held simultaneously by ignoring that they are mutually exclusive.
The fact that we seem to see the divine in multiple gods that we choose to work with has IMO more to do with our ability to see a reflection of our own image (the image of God) in the ideas and beings unto which we choose to give worship, than it does the idea that God is choosing to reveal himself to us in an incomplete and fractious way. That is if we're still talking about the God who made his people recite "The Lord is One" over and over again.
@Anonymous, the trinity isn't as easily expressed as "the One God incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ, and in this incarnation, God the Father (the Source) revealed himself completely and totally."
ReplyDeleteJesus explained that there were things that the Father knew that he did not know. He also explained that the Holy Spirit is capable of things that neither he nor the Father could do. Considering these limits to knowledge and scope of abilities, no one aspect of the Trinity can be considered "complete and total."
Jesus explained that there were things that the Father knew that he did not know. He also explained that the Holy Spirit is capable of things that neither he nor the Father could do. Considering these limits to knowledge and scope of abilities, no one aspect of the Trinity can be considered "complete and total."
ReplyDeleteI don’t think all of this is completely accurate. The Holy Spirit isn’t exactly capable of things that the Father cannot do, as the actions of the Spirit are in fact the actions of the Father, as both the Spirit and the Son are sent from the Father to carry out his will. The logic is explained in John 14:23-36: the word Jesus speaks is not his own, but the word of the Father, and the Father sends the Holy Spirit to teach all things and bring “remembrance” of the things Jesus said. This same principle is clear in other parts of the New Testament.
But I’ve got no interest in arguing over scripture with you. The question that springs to my mind is, why does a Christian look for “knowledge and abilities” in personas, or “expressions of God” that the Father chose not to express in his only begotten son?
One truth on this matter is that everything in existence is an expression of God on one level or another, don’t you think? That said, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good or desirable or virtuous to attempt to worship or love or emulate every single thing that could be taken as an expression of God, being that some of those things are not always helpful to our spiritual health. The purpose of the Law was to give us a set of boundaries to play within, so that we could stay within that “spiritually healthy” realm of God’s self-expression. The reasoning then goes that Jesus, as the fulfillment of that Law, is the expression of the “goodness” of God that he wants us to receive and know and love.
APaul: why does a Christian look for “knowledge and abilities” in personas, or “expressions of God” that the Father chose not to express in his only begotten son?
ReplyDeleteBecause the Father wants us to. Proverbs 2:2: "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."
You've got to remember that the stuff in the New Testament is part of the whole, not the end all be all of Christianity.
"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." John 16:12,
"I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready." 1 Corinthians 3:2
"For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature" Hebrews 5:12-14.
The purpose of the Law was to reveal wickedness. It was supposed to be the magnifying glass that showed people the error of their ways, sending them back to God.
"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19-20
It's supposed to be the guidepost that indicates we need to be friends with God because being in the world sucks. The GOOD NEWS was that God can be a friend, that the failures to meet the Law, the embodiment of what is written in our hearts as "Goodness and Right Action" is not sufficient to keep us from his presence. (See an upcoming post, already written, not finished yet cause I'm typing this instead.)
I think it’s a big jump to take quotes from scripture about secrets and knowledge and parlay that into the idea that God wants his people to worship other gods, being that the worship of other gods is spoken of in no uncertain terms, with no ambiguity about it at all, in many other portions of scripture. I don’t see how you can take the idea that you’re supposed to search and delve into the mysteries of God, and turn that into the idea that you’re supposed to worship something other than your source. If I’ve made a mistake and you’re talking about something other than worship, then I apologize. (The idea of “working with” so-called gods and goddesses without worshipping them is addressed indirectly at the end of this comment.)
ReplyDeleteWhat you’re saying about the Law is the same as what I’m saying – to reveal wickedness is the same as to set the boundaries of “goodness”; either way you say it, it’s describing the character which God desires man to have, which is an image of his own character. There is a lot said in Kabbalistic tradition about the Torah and Law being related to the image of God.
But regardless, my original statement was that the doctrine of the Trinity is not the same as the idea that God expresses himself in all of creation (or through gods, sprites, fairies, etc, however you want to say it), and this statement is still true.
While I don’t see anything inherently bad or harmful in “playing with sprites and fairies,” let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that it has any more spiritual value, as far as our relationship with our source goes, than playing with cats and dogs, or for that matter, imaginary friends. And it certainly has far less spiritual value than loving and being involved in community with other human beings.
Hey Paul, no worries, we're on the same page, 99% or so. I don't mean worship other gods, but just recognize they're all part of the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI think its ok for some people to worship the other gods because they aren't called to the same doctrine or religion other people are. Some people need to be fundie christians to behave. Others need to see the multiplicity of deities as the only form of deity.
None of us have the whole slice, only our own slice, based on where we're at in relation to God and whatever path we're on within that little microcosm. I'm pretty universalist about it.