buddhist
Well-Known Member
Immanent: "as being present throughout the universe"Could you explain your understanding of the terms "immanent" and "transcendent?" You appear to be using the terms unconventionally.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Immanent: "as being present throughout the universe"Could you explain your understanding of the terms "immanent" and "transcendent?" You appear to be using the terms unconventionally.
Why can't it be both? Like a king who has a domain and a capital city.An immanent deity who presides over all of creation, instead of a local spirit governing a select piece of land.
IMO, for the people to designate a common place of worship is one matter: for their alleged deity to designate a holy site is another matter altogether.
Why would an immanent, transcendent deity have need for a capital city?Why can't it be both? Like a king who has a domain and a capital city.
No, I'm not trying to dictate how other religions should designate sacred spaces. I am questioning the universal validity of their religion if - on one hand - they claim that their laws, practices, deities, etc. are universally applicable (even over me), yet - on the other hand - they claim exclusive rights to one specific piece of land.How so? Personally, I don't think its my business to tell someone else how their religion should go about designating sacred spaces. It's not my religion. If they believe their deities have designated some particular sacred space, cool! I bet there's a lot of history behind that, many things to learn, and it would be a good place to visit!
An omnimax deity doesn't have any needs. Its the people that do. We need to relate to G-d as the King, so He set up a system that facilitates that.Why would an immanent, transcendent deity have need for a capital city?
I would then expect such a universal deity to create a system where it is fully accessible anywhere in its domain (the whole universe) - not just from a specific piece of land.An omnimax deity doesn't have any needs. Its the people that do. We need to relate to G-d as the King, so He set up a system that facilitates that.
I am questioning the universal validity of their religion if - on one hand - they claim that their laws, practices, deities, etc. are universally applicable (even over me), yet - on the other hand - they claim exclusive rights to one specific piece of land.
I'm not sure how accessibility came into the discussion. I don't think I said that G-d was only accessible in one place.I would then expect such a universal deity to create a system where it is fully accessible anywhere in its domain (the whole universe) - not just from a specific piece of land.
"They" = religions, their disciples, and their deities or Source, which claim universal applicability over all peoples. The evidence are their religious scriptures, doctrines, or practices.Who is claiming what now? Who is this "they?" Where is the evidence of this "they" claiming "exclusive rights" and "universal validity" and what, exactly does that mean?
No, I'm not trying to dictate how other religions should designate sacred spaces. I am questioning the universal validity of their religion if - on one hand - they claim that their laws, practices, deities, etc. are universally applicable (even over me), yet - on the other hand - they claim exclusive rights to one specific piece of land.
Isn't that usually the point of having an exclusive piece of land? "God is here" or "God is more here than anywhere else" or etc.I'm not sure how accessibility came into the discussion. I don't think I said that G-d was only accessible in one place.
Christianity and Islam are both very land-centric, for example, and I consider them heavy on the proselytizing. Other religions (e.g. Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) are also land-centric to a greater or lesser degree, but IMO place less emphasis on proselytizing.In my experience people with land-centric religions tend not to be big on proselytizing. I'm sure there are some that are, but there don't seem to be many.
Or am I misunderstanding you here?
Christianity and Islam are both very land-centric, for example, and I consider them heavy on the proselytizing. Other religions (e.g. Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) are also land-centric to a greater or lesser degree, but IMO place less emphasis on proselytizing.
However, proselytizing is not the issue here, but the validity of religions which focus on specific pieces of land in light of the expected nature of their deity or equivalent Source.
I'm not sure what "usually" is supposed to mean here. Does my religion have to conform to what religions "usually" believe?Isn't that usually the point of having an exclusive piece of land? "God is here" or "God is more here than anywhere else" or etc.
I agree that land itself (in general) is important for the human psyche, however, I cannot see how a religion which purports to be based in cosmic principles or immanent deities would not consider all land to be holy, or how one small part of the land is "more holy" than other parts of the land.
Buddhism is based on cosmic principles, e.g. suffering is suffering wherever we are in the world, or presumably even off the world, yet it is not tied to any specific piece of land. On the other hand, many other religions do claim to originate from some other cosmic source (e.g. an immanent God, Source, etc.).
Why would a deity limit itself to be more apparent in one place, instead of everywhere?I'm not sure what "usually" is supposed to mean here. Does my religion have to conform to what religions "usually" believe?
G-d can't be in one place more than anywhere else as He is the place that the world is in, not vise versa. What there can be, is a degree of removal of the physical dimension so that G-d is more easily apparent in a given place.
Yes, "specific lands" would refer to specific geographical regions. Essentially that "this is the holy land of my religion" and everywhere else is not holy.