About the Gods/Godesses

Some gods (or whatever term) were here before the earth...some are here because of the earth...some are here because of human life...SO...if the earth were destroyed..i would imagine that river deities and forest deities, etc...might go with it...or, they might live on in death in the spirit world...who knows..

But i think you are trying to make a division of black and white..when there is black and white....and many shades of gray.

 

Actually I am doing the exact opposite of portraying things in black and white.

 

Saying that the "gods" are all "universal" is putting them in a black or white classification...saying that some are..some arent..some are here...those are there...but these are here and there is NOT thinking in black and white...its showing that what is black is also white, what is grey is white nor black...and sometimes gray is black and white....but fuck it..its all words.

 

I thought universal meant "everywhere". Doesn't sound terribly balck and white to me.

 

Universal (linguisticlly) means one together, but when using
Universal in the English use of the word, it means spanning
the Universe....it doesnt mean "everywhere"....and even
if it did mean "everywhere", then still there are some
Universal (everywhere) gods, and some Local...some
Regional..some Planetary..etc...

Define it how you want, you are trying to put everything
in here or there.."gods are universal" "non-universal things
are not gods" ....and that is black and white.

 

Socrates said that before one argues, you must first agree on terms. When there is a dispute, I always check in a dictionary. I prefer the Oxford since that is kind of the standard of the English language, but I don't have one handy, so I turned to Webster. Words DO matter, and in an argument such as this, where I actually think there is an agreement, but there is an argument of a term, then yes it matters. Never dismiss something with "define it the way you want." We all use words, and regardless of "correct" and incorrect" grammar, the purpose of language is to communicate.

So here is what Webster says:

Main Entry: 1uni·ver·sal
Pronunciation: "yü-n&-'v&r-s&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin universalis, from universum universe
1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society <universal health coverage>
2 a : present or occurring everywhere b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions <universal cultural patterns>
3 a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices> b : comprehensively broad and versatile <a universal genius>
4 a : affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable b : denoting every member of a class <a universal term>
5 : adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size) <a universal gear cutter> <a universal remote control>

So yes I would say the gods are universal, and no universal is not black and white. Something that is everywhere cannot be in one place and not the other. Thus, I am not limiting the term or even saying it is one way and not the other. The gods are universal and not limited to the Earth, and our perception of them is based on our experience. That is all we can do since I cannot perceive divinity through a dog's experience, a horse's experience, or even another person's. Is this limiting? Maybe only because we are limited, but that's the challenge we have to overcome.

 

I think your semantics issue here is more about the word God.

To Enlil it comes across that God means the divine, not an entity but an entirety.

To Heron, God is an individual entity that we revere that is just as much a part of the 'greater divine' but is still a unique entity unto itself.

Just a few cents from left field.

 

Good call BodyELectric...and that is what I was saying with his black and white...
if "gods=Universal" then "non-Universal = not god".. its a matter of terms...I was showing a clear arrangement of gods...

What Enlil calls gods, i also call gods, but he doesnt agree with me about how
far the term god goes...the spirit of my hearth is a god too...and it is not universal...

 

Could the web you speak of heron have something to do with string theory?... maybe that is a part of ancient philosophy/religion that really does exist and can be proven with science.

 

some interesting topics goin on here, once I get my dictionary out I may join in this convo! Ill have to unpack my two-dollar and fifty cent words.

 

the first lesson is that of the Divine Paradox - everything is, and isn't at the same time - it all goes back to subjective perception of such, and how the individual can best "grok" the order/disorder of the cosmos in their own minds.

and what a joyous thing it is when like minds join together!

and heron, isn't the spirit of your hearth part of the spirit of all hearths? (not trying to get into a debate here, just how i view it) a facet of the whole and all

as above so below - i feel if the earth ceased to exist, all the nature spirits would simply continue on, vibrating at a higher level or parallel dimension

 

No..the spirit of my hearth is not part of "the spirit of all hearths"....just like the spirit of my grandfather isnt "the spirit of all grandfathers".

 

Well said!

 

i can see your point, the spirit of your grandfather is not the spirit of all grandfathers......but he can also be seen as a facet of the archetype of the grandfather, the sage, etc - that's all i was talking about, no different than you may be considered a facet of the seeker, the pilgrim, the hanged man or the magus, depending on where you're vibrating at

everyone/thing is an embodiment of some form of archetype, living their own myth, having their spiritual correspondences existing on a higher plane, vibrating higher, melding together until they become generalized concepts (of priestess, whore, mother, father, shaman, magus, king, and prince for example) and eventually god and goddess, which in turn combines to create godhead itself

it's no big deal, not trying to debate nor offend - simply musing

 

I still don't understand how my saying divinity is universal is saying that it is black and white. In all of my years I have never even heard of someone thinking that, and I have heard a lot of things.


It seems like no one has a problem limiting divinity. On one hand you have monotheists saying there can only be one god - yet somehow they don't have an issue with the leap in logic require when you call something that is "one" as infinitite at the same time.

And now there are people saying that spirits are limited to a "thing" which implies to me that if that thing is gone, then the spirit is dead. This shows a literal-mindedness which I suppose one cannot truely debate in a forum.

I never figured this is the kind of argument I would have with pagans. Oh well live and learn I guess.