firedragon
Veteran Member
Interesting.
I learned something new today lol
I was more referring to the very rigid lines drawn in the sand between like pantheism, monotheism and polytheism. Those don’t always translate very well in many eastern traditions. That’s all I meant, really
Wohow. SomeRandom, that's interesting. And I am gonna trouble you for information.
In Hinduism, as I understand it's Pantheism. Don't take me wrong, I don't know Hinduism that well. So I need to be educated.
Pantheism can sit well with monotheism. Not a problem at all. Pantheism is not an opposite or a different theology to monotheism by default. By definition, monotheism just means one God. That's it. Pantheism is also as logically possible to be monotheistic as any other theistic view with this "one God" principle. There is absolutely no conflict in that matter.
The conflict between polytheism and monotheism is by definition obvious. But in my paradigm, I do not consider Hinduism polytheistic. I do consider it monotheistic. Of course, and/or pantheistic.
The conflict does lie on theologies, not in these terms. In Christianity as an example, the initial shaker or mover was God. In pantheism by definition God is the universe and the universe is God. So that's a big conflict. But you explained that this line is too think in Hinduism so I did learn that. Though I do not believe the logical problem is not solved, I have a lot to think about based on your answer. That's the value of this forum.
People like Spinoza propagated Panentheism which is a harmony between the Jewish monotheism and pantheism. It was an attempt to bring creationism with pantheism because in pantheism God is the universe and the universe is God which to people like him poses a logical problem. To create, God needs to be separate from the universe. Thus, he would contend that God is separate, AND part of the universe. But also people like Ibn Arabi would make the case that since God cannot be apart of the universe since the universe is all we have, and that is a naturalistic explanation of the evolution of the universe from an inception, this is the most logical explanation. That's the reason I question the creation aspect and the pantheistic aspect. It's not some arbitrary question with no reason.
This is the reason I wish to understand how this line is as thin as could be.
Anyway I guess I spoke too much here, so I shall resign. Thank you so much for your most valuable information.
Cheers.