Land-Based Religions.

[buddhist]

Could you explain your understanding of the terms "immanent" and "transcendent?" You appear to be using the terms unconventionally.

Immanent: "as being present throughout the universe"

 

[Tumah]

An immanent deity who presides over all of creation, instead of a local spirit governing a select piece of land.

Why can't it be both? Like a king who has a domain and a capital city.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

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!

 

[buddhist]

Why can't it be both? Like a king who has a domain and a capital city.

Why would an immanent, transcendent deity have need for a capital city?

 

[Quintessence]

Immanent: "as being present throughout the universe"

I'd use the word "omnipresent" for that, but okay. To me, coupling "presides over" with "immanence" is an oxymoron.

 

[buddhist]

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!

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.

 

[Tumah]

Why would an immanent, transcendent deity have need for a capital city?

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.

 

[buddhist]

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 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.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

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?

 

[Sees]

If it is "earth-centered" and ancestral then definitely the religion is tailored to people - people who are connected to the land. If it is considered cosmic, revealed, universal, etc. then chances are not so much, at least by degree.

Different lands, stories, songs are holy to different people. There are universal aspects at play since you are dealing with generally the same sort of things, spirits, stuff of the universe but each flavor is unique - same as with beef dishes from all different cultures still being...beef. As for people proselytizing Mongolian Beef as the one, true, best ever beef dish to save all the palates and bellies of the world

 

[Tumah]

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.

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.

 

[buddhist]

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?

"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.

If a god, prophet, or their religion claims to possess jurisdiction over me (whether now, or sometime in the future), then I have a right to question its validity.

 

[Erebus]

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.

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?

 

[buddhist]

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.

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.

 

[buddhist]

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.

 

[Erebus]

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.

Ah, I did misunderstand you. My first thought when I saw "land-centric" religions was Shinto, various indigenous Paganisms and so forth. If anything they tend to have the opposite problem to being considered universally applicable in that there's a lot of debate (to put it politely) about who has the right to practice those religions.

 

[Tumah]

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 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.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.).

Think of it like someone's home, where they were born and raised. That person, say John, will always look back to his home as a "sacred place" because he and his family have a personal connection there. If Carol on the other side of the world says, "Im your step mother's daughter" she still has no union with the land of her step son (if I got that relation right). Its not her "special" land. She is family, yes but if Judaism is John and Christianity is Carol, being related doesnt mean Carol can claim X land as their home especially when her home is in Rome regardless of where the other side of the family grew up (say Jeruselum).

If Carol came to Jeruselum and said "I am part of your family, Im entitled to call this my sacred land", John may consider given her step parents are Jew but not Carol and Not her family.

Thats how John sees his land/home different than the rest of the areas he moved. Dont get me wrong, his family traveled in many areas but there is always one place they call their home. Think of the Star of David type of thing.

Its not that their land is more holy "in general" just to them, its where they were raised and born. Step families who arent even blood related and wasnt raized on the land would have different status but shouldnt have less respect given they all family (Abrahamic).

 

[buddhist]

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.

Why would a deity limit itself to be more apparent in one place, instead of everywhere?

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

I wonder about this myself. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'd guess that it has something to do with the fact that once national, ethnic or territorial boundaries were drawn, and people in those regions settled down into farming communities they began to revere the locations(s) and see something special in them. I don't think nomadic peoples would have the same view. After all, they're not tied to one location. Maybe in time the gods of the peoples who settled down took on the characteristics of their worshipers. There's a saying, and variations of it, that everyone sees God in their own way.