God’s anatomy

No, this isn’t about the Lurianic Qabbalah, so settle down. This is more abstract still. What I’ve noticed in mainline religion (and this may well be reflective of its inner-circle/outer-circle dynamic) is that there are two main ways to mean the term God (see also ‘theology’), and it’s because they’re conflated rather than distinguished that religion is such a cacophony of the braying of overly-suggestible sheep:

  1. Deity (Old Testament, often regarded as primitive and warlike, carnal, obsessive, jealous, exclusive, exceptionalistic, nationalistic, etc.):
    1. “Any force of nature, to include a hypothetical creator/sustainer/emanator”; see also magic.
    2. “Any archetype of the subconscious, with varying degrees of wholesomeness.”
    3. “Possible actual monsters such as humanoid giants, dinosaurs,
  2. Divinity (New Testament, often regarded as “New Age”, psychospiritual [after all, all warfare is psychological {even spiritual} warfare])
    1. “A bigger version of me.”
    2. “A substitute/replacement for my inadequate dad.”
    3. “A device of political rhetoric and pseudo-academia disguised as theology.”
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s