Skip to main content

Considering(?) the divine...

Considering(?) the divine versus the divine being, is there a difference? Is it meaningful? Can divine exist without a divine being? I don't know. listen

Powered by Jott

Comments

dkearns72 said…
Many, many religious traditions argue for the divine without using a single being (or many beings) with individual will(s). i would argue that Buddhism presents a very well developed sense of the possibility. The one that I like to study most myself comes from the more theologically-inclined Hindus who would argue that the many gods are only a simple way for humans to think of The Oneness that is all. and that Oneness is not a being with an identifiable single will.
June 6, 2008 at 11:11 PM
dkearns72 said…
the sense of the divine (as in more "fullness" to the cosmos than we can completely use our sensations for) goes back as far back as we can trace with funerary rites. the notion that the divine=The Divine, though, is almost certainly an Axial Age innovation, probably no earlier than the Jews coming back from exile. Their previous "monotheism" seems to have actually been "henotheism" where there is one primary god among many lesser gods: http://tinyurl.com/4o5vnd

Upshot: most people through human history until historical times would have believed in the divine without The Divine.
June 6, 2008 at 11:19 PM
dkearns72 said…
My take on the subject is straight from Rudolf Otto, and the wikipedia entry here, http://tinyurl.com/4zndtd nails it quite nicely:

"The German theologian Rudolf Otto, in The Idea of the Holy (originally in German, Das Heilige), defined the holy as an experience of something "wholly other," most famously mysterium tremendum et fascinans, a frightening and fascinating mystery.[3] (He was following the tradition of Friedrich Schleiermacher, who defined religion as a feeling or experience rather than adherence to doctrine.) Otto claimed that this experience was unlike any other; the subject experienced the spirit (the numinous, in Otto's terminology) as overwhelming, sublime, truly real, while he or she was nothing."
June 6, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, Virginia, Jim may occasionally post here. But you can too!

I've been offering up my unique brand of drivel on several poor bloggers' sites. I figured maybe I ought give people a chance for a little intellectual vengence. Plus I wanted a place to bore people with my pictures. With some luck feelings will be hurt, egos bruised, and sensibilities violated. Frequently. With great luck they won't be my feelings, ego, or sensibilities. But somehow I doubt it will work out that way. I absolutely guarantee that spelling and grammer will be heinously butchered, with great frequency. There are two acceptable ways for you to respond: Laugh -- outloud or otherwise Drill me with an acerbic comment "Lay on, MacDuff..." Jim
5 comments
Read more

On Jott Posts

The great thing about Jott is the absolute ease of making a quick post. Yes, it looks like I'll be running up the post volume for a little bit -- until the novelty, predictably, wears off. The bad thing is that the voice to text transcription is not as accurate (precise?) as I'd like. I'll try to clean things up when I can. The listen button will link you to my original, vocal, ramble. Sometimes , that might be more intelligible. (But often times not...) Most of the time they'll be full of background clutter as I'm sure I'll be driving when I make most of these calls. J
Post a Comment
Read more