Probably not. However you usually define it. (If you don't have a usual definition, "that which you perceive as sacred or holy" will do for the moment. but I'm sure someone will take exception to that, too. No, I won't define "sacred" or "holy." If you're having that much trouble, you can go get a dictionary.)
Okay. It just seems kind of meaningless to use the same word for all of them if we're defining it to mean completely different things in each option. *shrug*
I went with humanistic, but agnostic, apatheist, atheist, and other could also be viable, depending.
A comment section would have been nice, for those of us who identified "other/not listed" to clarify things. I indulge in a (not too rare, I don't think) combination of panentheism/polytheistic theology, and while it makes perfect sense to me (and I feel I have enough personal evidence to not change my belief structure) I could not choose from any on the list. Thought I would just clarify for your benefit. Interesting questions, and I look forward to the follow up post!
If there's a good way to put a comment space inside of a poll, I am too much of a luser to know what is is. I figured that anyone who said "other" and who felt like elaborating could always use the regular comments - which, in fact, you did, so clearly I was right, ne? ;)
I didn't include panentheism for two reasons: (1) Panentheism, unlike its older cousin pantheism, can be combined with any of animism, monotheism, henotheism, or polytheism quite nicely, and thus didn't need a space of its own nearly as badly as several other things, and (2) I ran out of room in the poll (LJ will only let you include so many entries) and had to cut several things out that had such overlaps (polyagnosticism and monoagnosticism also got cut, for instance). I'm both a panentheist and a polytheist, too, but the fact that I'm the former doesn't make the latter an incorrect descriptor, IMNSHO.
I have seen polls with comment space, but never having done one myself, I don't know how to tell you to do it. But, of course, you were right, and I'm guessing most of us who take the poll will have no problem with elaboration in the comments, if we feel the need. I guess I am just so attached to my own views that I wanted to share them, is all. Imagine that! LOL No criticism intended, sweetie, I hope you know that.
Panentheism (Greek words: pan=all, en=in and Theos=God; "God-in-all") is the view that God is immanent within all Creation or that God is the animating force behind the universe. Unlike pantheism, panentheism does not mean that the universe is all God or that God contains the universe inside himself. In panentheism, God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality. The term is closely associated with the Logos of Hellenistic philosophy in the works of Herakleitos, which pervades the cosmos and whereby all things were made.
In short, a panentheistic deity is an emergent property of Existence.
Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.
My personal theology contains elements of Pantheism, Polytheism, and Rationalism.
Of the first, I believe in something rather similar to The Force -- a sort of divine consciousness of the Universe, which occasionally reaches out and smacks you on the shoulder when you need to become aware of something.
Of the second, I have no trouble believing in many different god/desses, although I tend also to think of them as being personifications of different aspects of the Universal Consciousness, or sometimes aspects of the twin deities of Light and Dark -- depending on who I'm arguing with that day!
Of the third, I firmly believe that physical law is the supreme force in the Universe, to which even deities are subject. I do not believe in miracles, which I define as "an occurrence which clearly and unmistakably contravenes the physical laws of the Universe". I am also quite prepared to believe that there are physical laws and phenomena of which we are as yet unaware, and which we will discover in time. For example, I do not totally discount the existence of such things as precognition or telepathy; however, if they do exist, I am convinced that they have a physical cause.
I had to identify as non religious, but I think that's potentially misleading.
What if I don't believe in any sort of diety yet, but figure that a proper diety is the inevitable conclusion of the process which began when humans started communicating abstract concepts with languages? I don't want to pick sides before the process is over!
Shamanistic and animistic views seem closest to my views, but I am more essentially pragmatic and often atheistic when it comes down to it.
It seems clear to me that multiple minor divine beings are more likely than a single divine Lord. Then again, since I believe that reality itself is highly plastic from person to person, I conceed that a monotheistic universe is possible. I am not in it, but I obviously share a planet with other people who experience that monotheistic universe.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 11:50 am (UTC)I went with humanistic, but agnostic, apatheist, atheist, and other could also be viable, depending.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:24 am (UTC)I indulge in a (not too rare, I don't think) combination of panentheism/polytheistic theology, and while it makes perfect sense to me (and I feel I have enough personal evidence to not change my belief structure) I could not choose from any on the list. Thought I would just clarify for your benefit. Interesting questions, and I look forward to the follow up post!
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:37 am (UTC)I didn't include panentheism for two reasons: (1) Panentheism, unlike its older cousin pantheism, can be combined with any of animism, monotheism, henotheism, or polytheism quite nicely, and thus didn't need a space of its own nearly as badly as several other things, and (2) I ran out of room in the poll (LJ will only let you include so many entries) and had to cut several things out that had such overlaps (polyagnosticism and monoagnosticism also got cut, for instance). I'm both a panentheist and a polytheist, too, but the fact that I'm the former doesn't make the latter an incorrect descriptor, IMNSHO.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:53 am (UTC)But, of course, you were right, and I'm guessing most of us who take the poll will have no problem with elaboration in the comments, if we feel the need.
I guess I am just so attached to my own views that I wanted to share them, is all. Imagine that! LOL
No criticism intended, sweetie, I hope you know that.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:58 am (UTC)I'm not really sure what the distinction is between pantheism and panentheism.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 03:53 am (UTC)Panentheism (Greek words: pan=all, en=in and Theos=God; "God-in-all") is the view that God is immanent within all Creation or that God is the animating force behind the universe. Unlike pantheism, panentheism does not mean that the universe is all God or that God contains the universe inside himself. In panentheism, God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality. The term is closely associated with the Logos of Hellenistic philosophy in the works of Herakleitos, which pervades the cosmos and whereby all things were made.
In short, a panentheistic deity is an emergent property of Existence.
Pantheism (Greek: pan = all and Theos = God) literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 07:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 03:00 am (UTC)I identify as Christian, but my theology is either agnostic or humanistic depending on which day you ask me.
I probably need to stop identifying as Christian....but it's a difficult identity to give up.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-29 10:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 05:20 am (UTC)Of the first, I believe in something rather similar to The Force -- a sort of divine consciousness of the Universe, which occasionally reaches out and smacks you on the shoulder when you need to become aware of something.
Of the second, I have no trouble believing in many different god/desses, although I tend also to think of them as being personifications of different aspects of the Universal Consciousness, or sometimes aspects of the twin deities of Light and Dark -- depending on who I'm arguing with that day!
Of the third, I firmly believe that physical law is the supreme force in the Universe, to which even deities are subject. I do not believe in miracles, which I define as "an occurrence which clearly and unmistakably contravenes the physical laws of the Universe". I am also quite prepared to believe that there are physical laws and phenomena of which we are as yet unaware, and which we will discover in time. For example, I do not totally discount the existence of such things as precognition or telepathy; however, if they do exist, I am convinced that they have a physical cause.
Me too
Date: 2005-10-26 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-28 08:03 am (UTC)What if I don't believe in any sort of diety yet, but figure that a proper diety is the inevitable conclusion of the process which began when humans started communicating abstract concepts with languages? I don't want to pick sides before the process is over!
Shamanistic and animistic views seem closest to my views, but I am more essentially pragmatic and often atheistic when it comes down to it.
It seems clear to me that multiple minor divine beings are more likely than a single divine Lord. Then again, since I believe that reality itself is highly plastic from person to person, I conceed that a monotheistic universe is possible. I am not in it, but I obviously share a planet with other people who experience that monotheistic universe.